Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 192

Sandro Salsano


Articles for deletion/Sandro Salsano

Extensive COI history with many ip users and one user edits, that the only thing that makes Sandro Salsano Wikipedia:Notability is having been labeled a wikipedia billionaire in the first place without even one reference to a single financial transaction. Contribuine34 (talk) 14:30, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Are you saying Forbes is not a reliable source? As the billionaire statement is refrenced to them? Slywriter (talk) 16:49, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Forbes is a great reference. However, he has never been listed here in Forbes ever.  https://www.forbes.com/billionaires/  Sandro Salsano did appear in Spanish language Forbes Mexico in 2019, owned by Media Business Generators under licence from Forbes, and HE was the source that he was a billionaire based on owning 1,000 hectares in Pacora, Panama valued at $1 million an hectare. Forbes Mexico has not listed or mentioned his presumed wealth since.  To be a billionaire, there would be at least one news release, transaction, portfolio, asset beside the source himself saying he is a billionaire.  There is not a website to the land, or any reference in any sales records in public records, etc. Seems way too fishy to hide 1 billion dollars.  .https://www.forbes.com.mx/el-hippie-que-se-convirtio-en-filantropo/ Contribuine34 (talk) 17:43, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Is this the website of the supposed multi billion dollar conglomerate? The Salsano Group. https://www.salsanogroup.com/ Contribuine34 (talk) 17:47, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Is this the website of a billionaire's philanthropy group worth of wikipedia article? http://salsanoshahani.org./ Contribuine34 (talk) 17:49, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Can anyone find any office location of The Salsano Group? If so, please post here. Contribuine34 (talk) 17:50, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Salsano Group
 * Tower Bank General, 50th street, 20th floor
 * Panama City, Panama
 * Email: [mailto:contact@salsanogroup.com contact@salsanogroup.com]
 * Phone: + 507 203 6342
 * www.salsanogroup.com
 * Panama | London | Madrid | Geneva | Zurich | Curacao | Miami | San Juan | New York | San Francisco | Shanghai
 * Media Contact
 * Marco Barchetti
 * contact@salsanogroup.com Contribuine34 (talk) 18:00, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Here is a furnished office with video for rent at Tower Bank General, 50th street, 20th floor. https://ne-np.facebook.com/raulnavarrocnrealestate/videos/alquiler-oficina-lujo-tower-bankpiso-20completamente-amoblada-1800-mensual-90-m2/330183165142336/ Contribuine34 (talk) 18:09, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The address is Panama City, Panama ( no address or phone number) and has one employee, none other than Sandro Salsano. https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/salsano-group Contribuine34 (talk) 17:54, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Deleted subsection opened by, now blocked as a sock of. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 15:34, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Yannis Yortsos


This seems to be a situation where USC's marketing people are promoting USC faculty.

Bananasplitzz (talk) 19:37, 23 August 2022 (UTC)


 * I am no longer affiliate with the university, nor have I ever been apart of USC's marketing department. My contributions should not be included in the conflict of interest claim. Thank you. Adamhamden (talk) 19:54, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

St. Francis College


This single-purpose editor is almost certainly employed by this college in a position that makes their editing fall under WP:PAID. WP:OUTING prevents me from saying exactly why but I trust that other editors can perform the simple search that I did that establishes a clear link with the college. I left the standard warning template on their User Talk page two days ago and they have not replied, added a paid editing disclosure, or stopped editing. ElKevbo (talk) 21:11, 19 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Sockpuppet investigations/Gabterrier appears to be related to this COIN thread. —  Red-tailed hawk (nest) 21:34, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Potential UPE on Superior Air Charter and JSX (airline)


Since April 9, a user by the username of "RedStripe06" has been editing the article of Superior Air Charter (formerly "JetSuite"), a charter airline whose callsign is "REDSTRIPE". The editor has uploaded numerous images to Wikimedia Commons relating to the airline, whose plains are adorned with a red stripe down the middle, as their own work. Given the similarity of the username to the callsign of the charter airline, as well as the uploads on Commons claiming to have created the logo of Superior Air Charter, I suspect that this editor may have a conflict-of-interest with respect to the airline itself.

This does not appear to be the first time that an editor with a conflict-of-interest has edited the page. In December 2021, a user "Jsxmarketingteam" whose username contained the terms "marketingteam" (a phrase that also implies shared use) substantially edited the page and that of JetSuiteX, a similarly named airline that has historically been (and maybe still is?) related to JetSuite.

In any case, neither account has disclosed a conflict of interest, though they are required to under our terms of use if they receive any benefit in exchange for editing. I'm bringing this here for extra eyes to see if I've missed anything here. —  Red-tailed hawk (nest) 15:27, 23 August 2022 (UTC)


 * RedStripe06 has been renamed to by  per a request.
 * —  Red-tailed hawk (nest) 19:14, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
 * indeffed for the username violation, warned about WP:UPE and asked to make disclosure. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:38, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Tommy Ramdhan


Ramdhan is COI-editing, I reverted one of their edits but they keep on editing. One of the edits was to fix a typo of their last name. I would advise keeping a close eye on them for the next few days. I've tagged the article with. A diehard editor (talk | edits) 09:48, 25 August 2022 (UTC)


 * I don't think this is a huge problem as long as he continues to make only factual additions (preferably with citations). However, I have given him a warning about COI. Deb (talk) 10:45, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Changed my mind. Since he's completely ignored my advice and reverted my corrections, I've blocked him from editing that particular page. He's free to edit any other articles. Deb (talk) 12:03, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Darouze/Thompson Conflict of Interest
This post is in regards to a city councillor in Ottawa named George Darouze's page being locked on wikipedia, whilst one of his challengers in an upcoming election did not have his locked. I am a constituent in his area and am curious about your comments regarding paid editing or conflicts of interest. I was looking through candidates for my local area for the upcoming election, and couldn't help but notice stark differences in 2 candidates pages. The Darouze page had A) pushed negative media articles in reference to the councillor to the top of the page B) referenced his previous support for the man who is now running against him (relevance) and C) after checking the page of both Darouze, and another candidate named Doug Thompson, I couldn't help but notice that there was an individual making a large amount of edits for the Thompson page whilst also posting the slander pieces against Darouze. Does this not constitute a conflict of interest or paid editing situation? I think it is worth looking into the person in question who has been actively editing both websites during a campaign and posting favourable/unfavourable sections based on what I perceive to be their own conflict of interest. Thanks

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=George_Darouze&action=history https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Doug_Thompson&action=history



Replace this with a brief explanation of the situation. OttawaResident74 (talk) 00:52, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I think the OP is referring to :

Alexcalamaro (talk) 04:43, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
 * This does seem like a fairy blatant case of using wikipedia for campaigning purposes for one or both candidates. As a starting point, I have reverted both articles to the state they were in before the recent flurry of editing. This is no doubt not the best long term solution, but at least flags the issue. Melcous (talk) 08:42, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Hello,
 * I disagree that editing wikipedia before an election is favouring anybody. It's a democratic service so people can read up about the candidates based on their online news articles.
 * In the post above, it says there are slander pieces against the candidate. But the pieces are from legitimate newspapers.
 * I would like to find a way forward that makes everybody happy. How can we do that? Can we start by going over the sections that I wrote that aren't thought to be appropriate and re-write them together?
 * Are there any articles critical of Thompson that should be referenced? I don't want to be perceived as omitting any of those. Thanks. Eastcoastrandom (talk) 00:46, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
 * This is a fair response, however it was abundantly clear that the pages were edited far more thoroughly for one candidate, and that one page was being prioritized over another, during an active campaign. I am not upset with you for your editing specifically, but there could be conflict of interest arguments made in regards to this, specifically towards the campaign of the individual (Thompson) with a more positive and extensive listing of biography. OttawaResident74 (talk) 02:48, 25 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment For what it's worth, canvassing for or against election candidates is definitely not acceptable. My personal view is that both articles should be protected from editing by new or anonymous users, but it's difficult to know how far to go. User:Melcous's assessment is spot on. Deb (talk) 07:55, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Hey Deb, agree with you and with User:Melcous. The reason this raised concerns for me initially is that one persons had been edited thoroughly and included all past achievements, while the other was hardly touched whatsoever, with a common user making adjustments. I think that is a pretty clear example of online canvassing for one party as opposed to the other in the middle of the campaign. Both pages should require edit requests, and I agree that reverting the pages to their prior state was a good middle ground to find. OttawaResident74 (talk) 15:32, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Nirmal Dulal - COI editing?


This talk page discussion kind of summarizes the problem in dealing with User:Nirmal Dulal. I'm bringing it here because this editor is a bureaucrat on the Nepali Wikipedia and clearly has considerable experience of editing, but little experience of English Wikipedia and it appears he does not understand, or intend to abide by, the COI guidelines. I can understand that he is keen on pushing topics relating to Nepal, such as Dhiraj Pratap Singh and Jyoti Magar, but his persistent refusal to accept or listen to advice on declaring COI is difficult to counter, because this is how he sees it. (I'm not overlooking the fact that User:DIVINE also has limited English and a history of blocks for personal attacks.) The problem relates mainly to his introduction of photographs of Nepali celebrities that he took himself, which may or may not be quite innocent. I'm not sure which way to go with this, and maybe it's premature, so I would appreciate opinions from other administrators. Deb (talk) 07:50, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

TheRealShoresy


TheRealShoresy keeps adding references to a show named "Shoresy" to Wasaga Beach. Offending revisions:

Wasaga Beach has even had a media reference recently in the show Shoresy, with it being known for such things as "Underwater Squeezers" and "Aqua Dumps" being performed at it's location.

- TheRealShoresy

A diehard editor (talk | edits) 03:57, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Scandrett Regional Park
I'm not sure whether this is a "Conflict of Interest" issue, an "Original Research" issue, or some combination of the two. User "E James Bowman" has substantially edited this article using several sources - including https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scandrett_Regional_Park#cite_note-our-5 and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scandrett_Regional_Park#cite_note-acc-10 - that he, himself wrote. He refused to acknowledge an error in his edits by pointing to a source (containing the same error) that he had written.65.122.255.220 (talk) 11:18, 27 August 2022 (UTC)


 * The source is a booklet published by Auckland Council, which, as stated in the booklet, was written by historian Graeme Murdoch, with stated sources and acknowledgements. My family and I contributed to later parts of the booklet. You are yet to provide evidence that the booklet spelling is incorrect. If you Google 'Ōmaha and Mahurangi block' you can see various other reliable sources using this spelling, including NZ Parliament's 'Ngāti Manuhiri Claims Settlement Bill, Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei Claims Settlement Bill — Procedure, First Readings'. E James Bowman (talk) 20:45, 27 August 2022 (UTC)


 * IP editor (and E James Bowman), as explained in the Additional notes above, this page should only be used when ordinary talk page discussion has been attempted and failed to resolve the issue. I suggest that one of you start a discussion at Talk:Scandrett Regional Park and only come here if that does not resolve the issue. TSventon (talk) 07:53, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Steven Fernandez


User:Stevenfernandez00 created Steven Fernandez. The username and article name matches. Possible conflict of interest. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:26, 26 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Account has not edited since 26 May 2020. Looks like the AfD discussion is heading towards delete. I don't expect this user to respond. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 03:34, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Wartburg Adult Care Community


SPA adding unencyclopedic/promotional language, improperly referenced. EL to Facebook re-added multiple times. No response to COI notice on their TP. MB 17:22, 26 August 2022 (UTC)


 * They have since responded on their talk page, confirming that they know the owner of the business . --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 03:36, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Freelancer's page on Wikipedia
Hello all. I was surprised to see a freelancer's page, Sudeep Acharya, on Wikipedia. Most of the references he used are the sites he advertise on, his YouTube channel, and some PR articles. Not sure how this junk stayed here for so long. 62.45.241.148 (talk) 01:23, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
 * ping who reviewed this. 62.45.241.148 (talk) 01:27, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the headsup. Sent to AFD here: Articles for deletion/Sudeep Acharya SmartSE (talk) 17:28, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Asiavision News


COI editing, and inappropriate username. A diehard editor (talk | edits) 03:41, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Polyphenols


I have been editing polyphenol related pages since about 2016 and have regularly encountered criticism by another editor. This criticism was mainly based on the fact that polyphenols are my area of expertise and that as an academic researcher in this field (with funding from various sources) I am too biased to contributed. This has been raised here [] before, but without conclusion. Zefr has now again accused me of COI/POV editing and threatened to take action, and this is currently being discussed here [].

As suggested therein by Chess, I open another discussion here, hoping that there will be a decision whether I am permitted to continue to contribute to those articles, or whether my expertise excludes me from it.Ggux (talk) 11:03, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

209.129.115.6


This IP address is registered to California State University Network, and appears to be used almost exclusively to insert citations to ‪the work of José Castro-Sotomayor‬, and to making edits related to California academic institutions. The address was warned about COI edits previously in 2017, but similar edits continue. I have removed a bunch of the self-citations, but there are too many for me to deal with by myself. ParticipantObserver (talk) 17:26, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Simufilam


Is this edit, or SighSci's recent editing overall, a COI policy violation? They have twice indicated a conflict of interest related to biotech company Cassava Sciences and Simufilam, a drug in development by the company:
 * 1) 16 August: they say they've read the COI policy and will "only make suggestions"
 * 2) 26 August: "Yes I have a COI, which is why I have spelled things out on the Talk page instead of editing, once informed."

Direct article editing with a COI is allowed, but SighSci's reliance on Cassava Sciences press releases has made their article edits inappropriately promotional. The edit in question was their second attempt at adding press-release-only content, after their first attempt was reverted (by me) about a week ago. SighSci never discussed restoring the material at the talk page.

They were informed of the need to avoid press releases, unless supported by secondary sources, a few times. One example is this series of comments by SandyGeorgia (more diffs available on request).

I'm trying to keep this filing as focused as possible, but SighSci's edits outside of article space have also been troublesome. Most of it is on display at Talk:Cassava Sciences and their user talk page, but I'm happy to provide select diffs if requested.

Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:03, 30 August 2022 (UTC)


 * SighSci has me at my wit's end. All three articles are still a mess, there are many changes, edits and improvments I need to make, intend to make, and want to make, but SighSci has such a bad case of WP:IDHT that I am unable to make progress. Each time I return to the talk page, intending to try again to get the articles into better shape, I find more personal opinion, more disparaging and off-topic remarks, and more failure to use reliable sources along with filling the talk pages about how the reliable sources are hit pieces and the like.  I am at the point of unwatching the lot, but they really do need cleanup still, and I hate to leave articles in the shape they're in now. Sigh, sigh and sigh. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  04:12, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The problem with using the Cassava press releases is they tell only one side of the story, while secondary sources give the bigger picture on subsequent statements from journals re further investigation on other concerns. For consideration of the magnitude of the problem going on across all the articles:
 * Cassava Sciences has been editing:
 * 18:54, August 16, 2022 rangeblocked IP2600
 * 19:12, August 16, 2022 SighSci first post
 * Sandy Georgia (Talk)  04:27, 30 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Presumably is WP:PAID. Why is there no declaration? Alexbrn (talk) 07:19, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * An interesting factor is Cassava's compensation plan, the subject of a lawsuit. According to The New Yorker and The Wall Street Journal, officers can draw bonuses if the stock price is maintained at a certain level for 20 consecutive days, and "The heavily redacted lawsuit, made public Wednesday, accuses Cassava board members of adopting the bonuses as part of 'a plan to overcompensate themselves through the back door' after investors rejected their bid to overpay themselves in equity." There's quite a short-term incentive there. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  07:56, 30 August 2022 (UTC)


 * FYI, we have already had some discussion around this company a few months ago: Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 190. SighSci would look to me more like a paid editor than a simple COI. SmartSE (talk) 15:41, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Interesting: I missed that, but have requested protection twice so I could try to do cleanup (I feel I've failed because I keep getting stalled by the unholy mess on talk). For an idea of how really horrible the editing has been, search this version for a paragraph beginning with "Quintessential Capital Management". Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  19:16, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * - I also just noticed that the IP range continued editing this month and was blocked by - I have added the IP template above, but also see Special:Contributions/2600:1700:bb80:88a0::/64. And yes, it's an unholy mess and thanks for your efforts to try and resolve it. SmartSE (talk) 11:23, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * SighSci demonstrates knowledge of the personal life of Lindsay Burns. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  19:37, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I missed notice of this -- sorry. QCM was mentioned not by me but by the original creator of the page in trying to make the company (or was it the drug, I forget) look bad. I did edit to show how ridiculous and libelous their "report" was (it was posted online for all to see) -- would rather have deleted any mention of it. As for "personal life" of Burns, race results are online here: https://www.regattacentral.com/regatta/results2/eventResults.jsp?job_id=6143&event_id=27. Frankly, constantly using "wife of Barbier" is what's personal, and Stat was the first to throw this around, discrediting her for presenting data at a conference, as if she doesn't hold a PhD and have knowledge of the program. I'm not a paid editor and have already declared a COI. I apologize to SandyGeorgia for my excessive talk (I'll stop), and thank you for your work. SighSci (talk) 23:17, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Similar editing from, who also first edited after the rangeblock; see thread today at RSN. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  14:29, 1 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Could someone with the tools ( ?) please look at the deleted revisions of Draft:Nemsys and ask the relevant questions at User talk:Mnachtrab? This whole paid matter is outside of my usual range of editing. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  14:38, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Nemsys is a company I own and like I said I am just learning wiki so I thought I would start up a page for my companies history. It got deleted because it said it was promotional but really I was just learning and getting it up for history purposes.  Not trying to get leads from it. Mnachtrab (talk) 15:07, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * This edit takes an identical position to the IP edits. I will notify Mnachtrab of this discussion. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  14:51, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I am trying to make the page be more balanced and fact based. Many opinions are on the page or references to articles with opinions when it can just be summed up with facts. Mnachtrab (talk) 14:58, 1 September 2022 (UTC)


 * - I think you should be able to see yourself from the deletion log that that article contained "This wiki page was created by the founder of Nemsys, Matthew Nachtrab" but it is not immediately clear what link there is to Cassava. I have left them a uw-coi just in case. Has someone else bought up the Compliance Week sources before? SmartSE (talk) 15:06, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh I have no idea. Are you asking what my link could be to cassava?  I am not paid by them as a consultant.  I am not associated with the company in any way.  I just follow the story and know a lot about the company.  The Compliance week article is a great neutral coverage of the story that was not lead by people that are selling the stock short.  Most of the content in the other articles was really sourced through people that are clearly negative about the company.  Compliace week did deep research and rose some questions about the motivations behind the people that filed the various complaints about cassava. Mnachtrab (talk) 15:10, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to out anybody (even though this is one of those cases where we all pretend google doesn't exist), but I will ask this question:, do you hold a large investment in Cassava Sciences? Let's say anything 5 figures and up is 'large'. MrOllie (talk) 15:17, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Without the necessity to out Mnachtrab, at this point, I'm not sure if it matters if it's five figures or one; a position taken publicly on the stock value should be sufficient regardless of the magnitude. We are probably at a point where reverting to revisions before Mnachtrab's edits are the most expedient. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  15:20, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * You said you are not going to out anyone, then you did... I added the COI to my user page. New to WIKI... rookie mistake.  I am just trying to get the Cassava page more fact based and less opinion article and obvious negative tone like the word "Scheme".  The stat quote is confusing and jumps to the conclusion that enrollment is slowed as people were deterred because of prevailing controversies. Mnachtrab (talk) 17:02, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The word scheme and the use of the Stat website (a reliable source) are matters for editor consensus on talk. (Where COI editing has made any progress towards cleaning up the article quite difficult.) This page is about your COI; have you declared your COI in full -- that is, do you have any personal relationship to Alzheimer's disease that might affect your ability to edit neutrally ? Sandy Georgia (Talk)  17:13, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * My grandfather died 20 years ago from it. I also have a gene that makes me more likely to get it (like a large portion of the population). It does not have an impact in my ability edit neutrally.  My knowledge of the disease, various treatments, and of Cassava Sciences and other companies targeting allow me to edit neutrally. Mnachtrab (talk) 18:29, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Our issue is that people who have conflicts of interest always think that they can edit neutrally, but they are usually mistaken. MrOllie (talk) 18:34, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Further, re your statement that MrOllie outed you, see your own editing at Draft:Nemsys. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  18:07, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * This is getting very time consuming, but I will put together documentation of similar edits (Compliance Week and nov Stat (website) as well). That should misspend my a.m. editing time. Thx, SmartSe; this is getting to a point where, rather than trying to bring the suite of Cassava articles into some sort of decent shape, I may move on to areas where my time is not misspent, and just leave them tagged as COI and POV. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  15:13, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Having now done my google-is-your-friend homework, I don't think it necessary to misspend more time exhibiting the COI and paid editing issues, and the editing similarity creating a POV towards the company position that is abundantly clear. Neither of the editors here should be editing this suite of articles, and it's further likely that neither should be allowed to continue to disrupt the talk page and impede efforts to bring the articles to a decent state. The COI/PE is making it extremely difficult to actually get any work done towards improving the articles, which continue to be slanted by the COI/PE. If there is any benefit to me misspending more time illustrating those edits, pls let me know. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  16:23, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Now at a third "noticeboard" (the help desk). Sandy Georgia (Talk)  17:43, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

This is disruptive. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  21:11, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

User:Pranav Baria




Promotion-only account, repeatedly submitting spam articles about Indian esports and sports groups. I've warned them repeatedly about declaring paid editing or at least a COI, but have so far had no response.

User:Pranav Baria has also made highly promotional edits to existing article Elite Pro Basketball League. Storchy (talk) 14:29, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Also adding user links for User:Sanawagle, an inactive account which posted the same drafts two years ago, later abandoned. Maybe they simply forgot their password and created a new account, but Sanawagle at least declared paid editing at their user page, whereas Pranav Baria seems uninterested in declaring either way.

Also adding user links for User:Jishan.JAM, who created Elite Pro Basketball League and Elite Sports India (currently at AFD), similar though not identical articles, and the latest Draft:Mobile Global Esports Inc, which User:Pranav Baria jumped in to edit a day later. No declaration of conflict of interest yet.

OK this looks a bit like a sockpuppet investigation, I guess. Maybe I should re-post this there, but the immediate problem is User:Pranav Baria, who seems to realise that they're about to be blocked for undeclared paid editing, after many warnings. Storchy (talk) 14:29, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I opened a discussion at ANI about this user a minute later, so I'll move my comments here. Their edits all seem to revolve around someone named Richard Whelan — Draft:Elite Sports India (name on page), Draft:Elite University Sports Alliance of India (name on page), Draft:Mobile Global Esports (see SEC filing). – Pbrks (t • c) 14:36, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi, @Storchy @Pbrks thanks for an update but fortunately, I don't have any external or internal relationship with the people, places or things I've written about on Wikipedia. I came across an article on internet written about Elite Pro Basketball League. I searched it on Wikipedia but found no article written on it then I created an article on Wikipedia about Elite Pro Basketball League. Later I found the user @Pranav Baria made an edit on my written article which was later got rejected. In a meanwhile I had gone through the articles written by the user @Pranav Baria then I did a research on the rejected articles written by the user and tried to write those rejected articles with the proper citations. That's all I did. At last I request you please remove my username from Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest Thanks. :) Jishan.JAM (talk) 22:41, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

User:Pranav Baria is now blocked, with the right to appeal of course. Deb (talk) 13:11, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I just added Trutyinfo based on this ultra spammy and transparent creation about the CEO. PICKLEDICAE🥒 18:32, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
 * All of the above accounts (plus a few others) are now blocked, see Sockpuppet investigations/Jishan.JAM. Storchy (talk) 22:13, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

ani-stohini/unami, yuchi


Information regarding Unami (Lenape) people linked to this group with no sources. Federer20201 (talk) 21:55, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Reverting others changes, user may have a conflict of interest. Changes include but not limited to; Yuchi people in SW Virignia labelled as "fringe theory", removing links to Yamasee, Mississippian culture, etc claiming non-existence Federer20201 (talk) 21:55, 3 September 2022 (UTC)


 * @Federer20201, with respect for your efforts, can't you find a way to talk this thru with @Yuchitown an experienced collaborator on the project, without dragging it to a notice board? Netherzone (talk) 22:17, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Certainly happy to keep trying. My talk page was immediately tagged as conflict of interest once I began the discussion.  As you cite experience, what is the reccomended method for arbitrating an accusation of conflict of interest? Federer20201 (talk) 22:54, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Discuss it with the other editor in a conversation before bringing it to a notice board. Netherzone (talk) 23:11, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

I definitely do not have a conflict of interest with Ani-Stohini/Unami. If it weren't for its Wikipedia article, I would never have known the organization ever existed. I did place a conflict of interest warning on the OP's talk page, because I do believe they have a conflict of interest. They opted not to disclose. Yuchitown (talk) 23:20, 3 September 2022 (UTC)Yuchitown

Randy Wayne (biologist)


BinaryPhoton (BP) claims on his user page to be Randy Wayne, a plausible claim considering that Wayne, a notable biologist, has published some questionable theories on physics and the nature of light. BP has been warned on several occasions about WP:COI editing of his own biography (see User talk:BinaryPhoton) and has previously been the topic of discussion on this page (see Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 57). At that time, BP had tried to use Wikipedia to further his fringe theories of physics. Those theories have since been removed from the article, leaving an acceptable article about a biologist of some note.

Recently, BP again edited the Randy Wayne article, adding a note about the fact that Cornell University has recently removed a bust of Abraham Lincoln from public display, and that Wayne had noticed the removal and asked a question, 'What happened to the Lincoln bust? There are citations regarding the existence of the bust, citations regarding the university's decision to remove it from display, but no citations indicating that Wayne had done anything with regard to this event. This appears to be an attempt by BP to inject himself (i.e. to inject Wayne) into an event with which he had nothing to do.

I believe it is time to remove BP's ability to edit this article. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 22:15, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

The citations all discuss Wayne's role in asking a question about the Lincoln bust. BinaryPhoton (talk) 22:50, 3 September 2022 (UTC)BinaryPhoton


 * Why are you referring to yourself in the third person? AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:05, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Apologies about misreading the citations. Still, the event is not notable in itself and adds nothing to our understanding of you as a notable biologist. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 15:19, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Eran Elhaik


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

I previously raised this issue in May 2021 here but got no response: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_173#Eran_Elhaik

Further editors on the subject's Wikipedia article talk page have also raised conflict of interest concerns.

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

On further inspection, I noticed that user RocksRsand has been exclusively editing pages related to Eran Elhaik for many years, often with specific detail. In 2014, user Shrike politely asked if he was related to Eran Elhaik and no response was forthcoming. The edits have continued. It seems likely to be that RocksRsand has a conflict of interest with Eran Elhaik. Another anonymous editor raised similar concerns in early September 2022 (see talk page).


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

RfC regarding blocks incorporating off-wiki evidence
Cross-post, as a lot of this is relevant to this board: WP:VPP. -- Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she&#124;they&#124;xe) 02:08, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Leroy Cronin


has an apparent conflict of interest. This has been raised several times on their user talk page and on the talk page of the article Leroy Cronin. Several other users have expressed concern. I recently advised the user they must declare their conflict of interest, they have failed to do so and have resumed editing the article to restore a NNPOV, including removing information about recent controversy. Polyamorph (talk) 07:21, 11 September 2022 (UTC)


 * I have blocked from editing the article about Leroy Cronin to prevent further edit warring. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 10:02, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Animal Justice Project


Username suggests COI, and what do you know, it is. User has been making edits to the article, adding primary sources, POV praise of the AJP, and some of it was copied from the AJP's website. Augusthorsesdroppings10 (talk) 15:51, 12 September 2022 (UTC)


 * I just raised the issue at WP:UAA, not sure if it counts as a promotional username, but to me, it is close enough for me to at least report it to see if an admin can deal with it. FrederalBacon (talk) 16:01, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Blocked as promotional account indefinitely by User:Jauerback. FrederalBacon (talk) 17:33, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Edits by Money.com employee


CamerasAndCoffee is a "Community Engagement Specialist at Money.com". Despite my objections and my request that open a discussion, they continue to edit articles solely to promote their employer e.g.,,. On their User page, they explicitly tell us their purpose here: "My name is Génesis Walker and I am a Community Engagement Specialist at Money.com (formerly Money Magazine). We’ve helped people live richer lives for over 50 years, and I'm here to continue providing you with the tools, resources, and answers needed to make important financial decisions for yourselves."

I again request that this editor cease adding their employer to articles until there has been further discussion and a consensus in favor of those edits. They have a clear conflict-of-interest that cannot be ignored. ElKevbo (talk) 22:13, 8 September 2022 (UTC)


 * We are a team dedicated to sharing our well-rounded and informative articles. in their reply to you certainly implies shared account, and should be indeffed as such. FrederalBacon (talk) 03:25, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I assumed that was some standard "about us" text that they copied or just have written many times before. ElKevbo (talk) 18:15, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I also found them editing other links to promote money, changing Time links to Money, under the guise of updating stale links, but the old links worked, they just loaded on Time, not Money.com. While I'm sure there were some that were legitimate, others, like changing a link on an SPER from 2016 in a talk archive, were not. FrederalBacon (talk) 17:15, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Is there an open investigation for this account or has this just been allowed to happen? It seems like a clear violation of COI editing as well as violating NOTSOAPBOX guidelines also. Melancholyhelper (talk) 08:35, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I have not requested that a sockpuppet investigation be opened, if that is what you are asking. I have not seen another account making similar edits to articles about U.S. colleges and universities so I have not had any reason to make such a request. If you disagree or have other evidence, you are of course welcome to request an investigation be opened yourself! ElKevbo (talk) 18:15, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The hundreds of links that are going in, are nothing more than promotional trash. They are completely unencylcopedic. There are no redeeming features. They are not even notable as a ref.    scope_creep Talk  23:06, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I second this, I posted on the editor's talk and explained COI to them, in a way that made it explicit that despite the COI guidelines not explicitly stating he can't make his own paid edits, that most editors take thinly veiled WP:LINKSPAM as prohibited. The editor said they'd take it under advisement and haven't edited since, but that was just this morning. FrederalBacon (talk) 23:15, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I managed to get the editors user page deleted. It was straight-up advertising as well.   scope_creep Talk  07:44, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Decentralized finance


Username suggests connection to Yanda.io, a source the editor has added to the article linked above (diff). — Ixtal ( T / C ) &#8258; Non nobis solum. 17:39, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Jeremy Bloom


The user has only edited this page, over the last 14 years. They pretty consistently add puffery and other non-cited, promotional facts, and the picture on the article is a headshot of the subject,, labeled "Own work". A couple of editors have expressed concerns, including just as recently as three days ago, but they have never responded to any on their talk, and they just reinserted the previously removed promotional material again. FrederalBacon (talk) 03:16, 2 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Follow up, because I should have made it clear: I have concerns Jbuff2006 is Jeremy Bloom, and that this is self-editing of their article. FrederalBacon (talk) 03:34, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Still no response to the noticeboard, nor no response to the concerns on their talk, and they are adding the puffery again. FrederalBacon (talk) 15:53, 2 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Looks like they've gotten a 5-day block from editing the Jeremy Bloom article. If the activity resumes after the block expires, I'm sure the blocking admin would be happy to extend/expand it. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 04:11, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I would normally agree, but the editor is blocked because I put an RPP up for the page after my update above. The block is supposed to force the editor to discuss. At this point, if they just wait out the block, I have no absolute proof of COI (despite a pretty clear suspicion being warranted). FrederalBacon (talk) 23:45, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * If their contributions are promotion-only, then they can be blocked for that alone, even in the absence of definitive proof of COI. WP:AIV sees those types of users reported all the time. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 14:18, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I think this is hilarious for some reason. Like you can't assume its Jeremy Bloom (it could be some crazy fan or family or something), but it be pretty sad if it was actually him editing his own article over the course of 14 years. The state of self-loathing in some of the previously removed edits is incredible.  Idiosincrático (talk) 10:11, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Karen Miga


Username matches the page name. I've sent a COI template already, with no response. Liliana UwU (talk / contribs) 05:15, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
 * , you left the COI template eleven minutes before you reported to this noticeboard. Perhaps give a little more time for a response? I also note that the editor has only edited the article within the previous two hours - see the note at the top of this noticeboard (emphasis added) which says "This page should only be used when ordinary talk page discussion has been attempted and failed to resolve the issue, such as when an editor has repeatedly added problematic material over an extended period." Thanks Melcous (talk) 06:03, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, please see the note in red at the top of this noticeboard which says you must notify any editor who is the subject of discussion here. Melcous (talk) 06:09, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Disregard, then. I may be a bit unfamiliar with the whole COIN thing still. Liliana UwU  (talk / contribs) 06:22, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
 * No worries, hopefully she will respond on the talk page or stop editing. If not and the issue persists, please do bring it back here. Melcous (talk) 07:44, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Some advice from Entrepreneur (magazine)
[https://www.entrepreneur.com/growing-a-business/5-ways-to-get-your-brand-on-wikipedia/433884 Need a Business Wiki? Here are 5 Ways to Get Your Brand on Wikipedia]

"Once your account is created, you don't want to dive into building your business's page immediately — odds are it will be rejected immediately, as your user doesn't have any associated credibility. Instead, spend some time contributing to various articles on Wikipedia under your username so that the platform knows you can be trusted. An excellent way to do this is to look for pages related to your industry and add brief, citable additions that relate to your company. For instance, if you're in the lumber industry, link to a newspaper article or press release about your business on pages that make sense."

They went pretty "dark arts" this time. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:27, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
 * While the Wikipedia community may detest articles like this, what's the point of bringing it here? There's nothing anyone here can do about external journal articles, and there is no evidence that the author of the article is a Wikipedia editor. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 18:46, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Just saw this. My thinking is that articles like these can be of general interest to Wikipedians who edit in the COI-area. A "know your opponent" kind of thing. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:30, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Centre for Heritage, Arts and Textile
User:LittleNirvana was blocked by on 8 Sept. Apparently, they are back with another sock User:WikiwikiTIKA and have moved the page, Centre for Heritage, Arts and Textile, back to mainspace without disclosing their status. 70.55.10.116 (talk) 13:48, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I've moved back to draft so that an independent reviewer can see if its any good. The editor here was trying to blank the page for some reason, even after it was moved out of draft. There is something odd going on.    scope_creep Talk  08:42, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Lenwood S. Sharpe


Lenwood S. Sharpe is the director of Lumberwoods, a virtual museum on North American folklore.

The Thrilllander account (originally Thrillland) is Thrill Land, founded by Lenwood S. Sharpe. It simply uploads content by him or related entities to Wikimedia Commons. It doesn't edit Wikipedia.

The various IP editors mentioned above began editing Wikipedia in 2018, particularly on North American folklore but also Bumpass, Virginia. Since the Lenwood S. Sharpe and Lumberwoods article was created in early 2021, these IPs have edited both. According to an edit from this range, Bumpass, Virginia is Sharpe's hometown. Edits have been made from this range inserting one of Sharpe's films into the articles on Experimental film, List of vampire films, and Z movie, usually with edit summaries that suggest some other wording change. In particular, the change to Z movie came after Gumberoo had already added it but it was removed as self-promotion.

Tripodero's old user page said his name is Lenwood S. Sharpe, but that has been removed since 2011. When Thrilllander uploads content to the Commons, Tripodero is the one who adds it to Wikipedia shortly after (e.g.: ). Based on the timing of these edits to User:Tripodero/Campfire story, Tripodero is also the anonymous IPs and accidentally edited the page while logged out. Despite having claimed to be Lenwood S. Sharpe, Tripodero did not disclose his identity or affiliation when commenting at Articles for deletion/Lumberwoods or Articles for deletion/Lenwood S. Sharpe.

Gumberoo has created two articles related to Sharpe—Lenwood S. Sharpe and Lumberwoods. Similar to the anonymous IPs, Gumberoo has made edits adding Sharpe's film to Z movie and B movie. As the creator of the Lumberwoods article, they also participated in its deletion discussion. This may or may not be another sockpuppet, but CheckUser would probably be needed to establish that and I'd like to take a step back to let someone impartial figure out if that's warranted. hinnk (talk) 07:53, 6 September 2022 (UTC)


 * So per another discussion, I again have no problem disclosing my identity. I am Lenwood. I have two user IDs on Wikipedia: User:Tripodero and User:Thrilllander. The prior is for personal use, the latter for uploading media I release into the public domain for free use. Since this media is released into the public domain under, "Thrill Land," I created this handle so the copyright waiver is verifiable. The latter's user page even reads: "This page has been created for the purposes of transparency." I have now linked to it from the Tripodero user page, as suggested recently by another user.
 * I do regularly share Wiki articles I'm currently working on and user space drafts with others for feedback. It's entirely possible that the user Gumberoo and the IP are the same user and may be someone I communicate with. Perhaps, they are someone unfamiliar with Wikipedia's policies. I do not know. I can remind others I know not to make edits related to me or my works, but there really isn’t much more I can do beyond that.
 * I participated in the discussion for the deletion of the Lumberwoods and Lenwood S. Sharpe articles, as I thought I was allowed to do so. I commented after noticing two articles adjacent to my area of study nominated for deletion by a user, hinnk, who has no previous engagement in this area. I discovered from hinnk's contributions that he had searched for articles and information related to myself with the purposes of removing any references to such from Wikipedia. Hinnk began with the removal of information regarding a film I made. I take it he did not like this film.
 * At any rate, this raised concerns of personal bias and vandalism which run contrary to Wikipedia's views on neutrality. I raise the concern on the discussion page. Now, I feel this is a one-off matter. I wish Hinnk well and encourage his/her future contributions to Wikipedia.
 * I, myself, do not think it a conflict-of-interest to participate in an article's discussion, so long as I am not editing the article. Likewise, simply because a user does not readily identify themselves by their legal name does not mean they are concealing this information. Honestly, I didn't think it was a huge secret, because, as hinnk pointed out, I did previously disclose this on my user page. I removed it awhile back simply for increased privacy. I do not believe one is required to reveal their legal name on Wikipedia, but I am doing so here for transparency.
 * Much extraneous work can be avoided by simply reaching out to users to ask for clarification. Accordingly, if anyone has any questions just ask me. I will be glad to furnish such information.
 * I am here on Wikipedia to promote fearsome critters and related folklore. As for Lumberwoods, it contains no advertisements and produces no revenue. Rather it serves to promote folklore, provide public access to rare texts, and renew interest in storytelling and a cultural heritage. It is already on the first page of Google on relevant searches to include "fearsome critters” and my personal homepage is linked there. Consequently, there has never been any financial nor promotional incentive to me with aforementioned articles inclusion on Wikipedia. Tripodero (talk) 00:25, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Now that the AfDs have been closed, I think the remaining potential COI issues would require a sockpuppet investigation. Is the appropriate next step to open a request at WP:SPI? I want to be mindful of forum shoppping, would appreciate some feedback from someone more familiar with these processes. hinnk (talk) 19:21, 12 September 2022 (UTC)


 * If you already are certain of the accounts being one person, you've already got some strong evidence of illegitimate socking. There are votes from two of those accounts on the lumberwoods AfD First Second FrederalBacon (talk) 19:41, 12 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I opened a request at Sockpuppet investigations/Tripodero, which will hopefully resolve any issues. hinnk (talk) 21:54, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Good call, sock blocked by User:Tamzin after that SPI. FrederalBacon (talk) 06:18, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Simufilam 2

 * See previous discussion at Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_192

I'm done with this suite of articles (simufilam, Cassava Sciences, Lindsay Burns). With all my efforts to help, and try to decipher reams of confusing talk page posts,, a declared COI editor, has now leveled accusations at me on Talk:Simufilam. Someone else can take over trying to understand their requests and keep the articles accurate and neutral. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  19:09, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
 * There has still been no COI disclosure from SighSci and now they are spuriously accusing Sandy of having a COI. If I wasn't involved I'd be indeffing right now, so please take a look. SmartSE (talk) 19:19, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I've modified the block to site wide. I appreciate the patience of everyone who attempted to work with Sighsci while the partial block was in place.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 19:27, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately appropriate at this juncture. At one point, I felt SighSci's input could be helpful in trying to understand what was what, and get the (very confusing) situation with all the different journal articles sorted, and I was willing to work with them, and even tried to help; in return, SighSci was ever so gracious. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  21:29, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Apostolic Catholic Church (Philippines)
Hi folks, this user has declared their role as a Catechist of the Apostolic Catholic Church in the Philippines, and they have persistently edited in that self-same topic area, adding massive amounts of unsourced information and ignoring all warnings. More eyes and comments, including admins considering sanctions, would be welcomed. Elizium23 (talk) 16:04, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
 * This might not be a COI per se, in the Catholic church, a Catechist is a lay person, essentially a volunteer Sunday school teacher. I was one when I was 18. They hold no rank, position, or power in the church, and are not paid for their services. If the editor is disruptive, it’s probably their own views, rather than one the church is telling them to push. ANI maybe? FrederalBacon (talk) 18:10, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Just noting that both volunteers and teachers have COI with regards to the institution they volunteer or teach for, although we generally leave it up to the individual to moderate that COI (not all COI mean you can't edit a subject after all). Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 18:52, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Absolutely, I understand it doesn’t necessarily mean there isn’t a COI, but I was more suggesting that if there is disruptive editing, being a volunteer doesn’t necessarily mean there ‘’is’’ one either, it might be better to take it to ANI. FrederalBacon (talk) 19:15, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed, the contributions are iffy regardless of any COI... The most recent set is basically spam. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 19:25, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Catechists are some of the top contributors to Catholic topics, why would being a catechist in a niche Catholic church disqualifies someone but being the same in the mainstream Catholic church doesn't? Either all catechists regardless of sect have a COI or none do. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 18:42, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
 * @Elizium23 Oh come on now, I thought we already had a consensus regarding that. That issue was already ages ago, and has already been solved by Mr.@Veverve. Why are you bringing it back now? Is it because my talk in Talk:Catholic Church? Come on, I already stopped editing in the article ages ages ago, and now you're just randomly reporting me to the admins with false accusations. Geez, atleast give some proofs about those 'massive amounts of unsourced information' and those 'ignoring "all" warnings'. Hath those existed and done by me, I would've long been restricted from editing. And please, stop with the disruptive labeling. @FrederalBacon @Horse Eye's Back Ploreky (talk) 05:20, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
 * You got diffs of the edits?
 * I know that sometimes, even if we aren't intending to be, it's possible to be disruptive to articles we are passionate about, due to that passion. If other editors are finding you disruptive in Catholic topic articles, it might actually be at that point. FrederalBacon (talk) 05:28, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
 * @Ploreky, I came here because you made over 50 additions to saints' articles without benefit of reliable sources. You have no proof that those saints are venerated in your church but you added them anyway. You can't do that here. I reverted all of those edits but you've been warned plenty about your behavior. Time for sanctions to be considered at this point. Elizium23 (talk) 05:31, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
 * All of those edits were made before this section was opened and that time has only weakened any case for sanctions as there is no ongoing disruption. Yes they made unsourced additions, but they were making additions to infobox sections which didn't have sources for *any* of the given sects... So why are we picking out this unsourced sect and not the others? Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 05:39, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, none of that looks much worse than what was already in the article. It's unsourced, but the others were, and I'm sure it could all be sourced if someone wanted to put the effort into going through it. Should the editor adding it do so? Yes. But I really don't think adding additional sects of catholicism that revere a certain saint indicates a COI. FrederalBacon (talk) 05:48, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
 * @Elizium23 Is that really you're only problem???? Geez, you shouldn't have deleted those 50 edits for goodness sake. I've spent 2 hours just adding those for someone just to destroy it.
 * For goodness sake, if you want it https://religion.fandom.com/wiki/Apostolic_Catholic_Church here it is. Ploreky (talk) 06:44, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
 * A Fandom wiki is not a reliable source, per WP:USERGEN. I don't see any support for your claims of saints venerated in that religion. Elizium23 (talk) 07:02, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh come on, do i really need to cite it? Like what user Horse Eye's Back said, Citations are irrelevant.
 * Why?
 * Since Apostolic Catholic Church in an "Independent Catholic" Denomination, that it is automatic that we venerate saints.
 * If other sects like Anglicanism, Lutheranism, IFI, and any other sects didn't even gave any refs to add the name of their church, then why would we need to?
 * Members of the church are named after saints, added to the apo title. Example: Apo Timoteo, which means "Timothy", is derived from a saint, St. Timothy, and like Apo Antonio, derived from "Anthony" refering to St. Anthony. These are what the church refers to the "New Name" that is stated in the book of revelations. Either way, I know which saints does the church venerate and which is not venerated. Even though the Apostolic Catholic Church venerate to all saints.
 * Ploreky (talk) 15:45, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I did not say that citations were irrelevant... Just that Elizium23 appeared to be applying a double standard. That doesn't mean that you should be going around adding unsourced information to wikipedia, please do not do that. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 15:59, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Of course Mr@Horse Eye's Back, I know that. I've been a wikipedia editor for a long time, and almost have 400 edits. With at least that much of experience, I already know wikipedia's basic rules Ploreky (talk) 16:19, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
 * For what is worth I'm closing in on 40k edits and I'm still learning new things. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 16:22, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Sh*t. Sorry for the word.@Elizium23 actually rollbacked my every edit. Now, I can't edit.
 * Was a sanction really needed for that???? In the first place, those edits were reasonable and not a vandalism. Why?????
 * @Horse Eye's Back @FrederalBacon, Brothers, can you please help me with this? In the first place there is nothing wrong with the edits I added. Was a sanction really needed without any warnings? Isn't that unfair?
 * @Favonian @Gyrofrog @JimRenge @Hog Farm Ploreky (talk) 16:45, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Just go to the saint section. Ploreky (talk) 17:12, 25 September 2022 (UTC)


 * I have blocked Ploreky 72 hours for repeated addition of unsourced content. I don't think there's much to do on the COI front, though. We've historically been pretty lenient with rank-and-file members of churches, schools, large non-profits, political movements, etc. Even with what I blocked them for, to me that's more a case of someone adding a lot of unsourced mentions of some topic they're interested in, than someone promoting something they have a COI with. --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she&#124;they&#124;xe) 08:06, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I think the lack of a concrete COI is pretty accurate, but disruptive editing is still disruptive editing, so temp block seems like the best way to deal with it to me. Given the lack of apparent COI, we can probably close this report, and any further issues can be dealt with on ANI, should the disruption continue. FrederalBacon (talk) 21:26, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Imply Data


At Imply Data I a large edit containing copyvios on 8 February this year. soon added back an edited version of the content. I've removed that twice, repeatedly suggesting to Briskmad that she/he obtain consensus on the talk-page before re-adding it. Now it's back in the page. To my inexpert eye this seems to be ill-sourced and promotional, the kind of stuff we regularly see from paid or COI editors. Brinksmad has denied any paid connection to the company. Anyone care to take a look? Thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:54, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
 * While trying to avoid WP:OUTING here, there is an easily discoverable connection between this username and this company. -  DoubleCross  ( ‡ ) 19:48, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
 * That's either a direct connection to the company, or someone impersonating a direct connection to the company. It looks like in February, they very carefully worded their response to the COI claim to only specify they were not receiving any money for their editing. Based off the connection you reference, I don't believe that they do not have a COI when it comes to the article. FrederalBacon (talk) 05:43, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
 * While I did not have a connection to Imply when I first edited the article, I am now an employee there, so I do have a current connection. I'd reiterate that my job duties do not include contributions to Wikipedia. Meanwhile, I'd urge people to look at the current state of the article, with alterations and contributions by, , and that have improved the article and, hopefully, removed any taint I have caused with my own contributions.Briskmad (talk) 02:34, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * No one is saying you can't contribute to the article in a productive way if you want. Just disclose the COI, per the guidelines, and use the talk page to suggest the changes you would like to make instead of making them yourself. You can be employed by a company and still contribute to their article, the COI just means it should be reviewed before being inserted into the article. FrederalBacon (talk) 02:44, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The editor needs to use the edit request mechanism, as they can't be trusted to write articles that are not promotional and abusive. The editor writes advertisement copy. He should be indef blocked.   scope_creep Talk  07:09, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, surprise, surprise, a paid editor after all! So,, were you already working for the company on 18 September (eight days ago), when you wrote "To be clear, as noted in WP:PAID, I do not receive, or expect to receive, compensation for my contributions to Wikipedia, on this nor any other article ...". Undisclosed paid editing is a violation of the Terms of Use of the Wikimedia Foundation. It's understandable that a new editor might still do it as a result of ignorance, but doing it knowingly and lying about it (citing the specific page where it is defined) most definitely is not. If I hadn't already interacted with you at that page I'd indefinitely block your account for that. I invite any other admin reading this to consider doing so. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 08:53, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I've blocked. Bishonen &#124; tålk 10:51, 26 September 2022 (UTC).
 * Thank you, . It seems pretty much a mathematical certainty that this denial on 9 February was also far from the truth.
 * At this point I'd normally revert the page to its previous state., , you've done a lot of clean-up there (thank you!). Are you satisfied that that isn't necessary in this case? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:46, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Good work Bishonen, Justlettersandnumbers.   scope_creep Talk  14:52, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I just removed a few more buzzwords, and now I think the article is in a reasonable state. I appreciated Bishonen short-circuiting a typical, lengthy back-and-forth to explain that a COI is a COI, and a paid one is a paid one. Largoplazo (talk) 15:47, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I would agree the Feb 9th denial was far from the truth. From what I can see, it appears as thought the COI pre-dated that claim. There is a difference between a general COI and a UPE, as they pointed out, but specifically pointing out that distinction by denying UPE while ignoring the general COI seems misleading at best. FrederalBacon (talk) 19:12, 26 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Not to be pedantic, but there is a difference between having a COI or even even being employee of a subject, and being an undisclosed paid editor. WP:PAID concerns If you receive, or expect to receive, compensation for your contributions to Wikipedia and WP:COIPAYDISCLOSE If you are being paid for your contributions to Wikipedia... (emphasis added in both cases). Someone with a COI can write an overly promotional article on their employer entirely on their own time, without any instruction or payment from the employer. If we're gonna punish someone for not following WP:PAID to the letter of the law, we need to make sure said law was actually violated. COI editing is not equivalent to UPE. --Animalparty! (talk) 17:44, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * While I agree with you, and in fact was trying to deal with that exact distinction and templating with the editor before they were blocked, is there really much of a difference when the editor is in a leadership position within the company whose article they are editing? I'd argue there's a big difference between an assembly line worker editing the General Motors article, and a GM executive editing the article. FrederalBacon (talk) 22:24, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * It depends an awful lot on the nature of one's employment and one's job responsibilities. In the case of an hourly office cafeteria worker, writing about the company is not their responsibility, and there is a clear division between company time and their time. In that case, writing about the company while they're at home in the evening is, one can easily argue, not paid work and is unlikely to get them a raise for their service on the food line. In the case of a network technician responsible for hooking a company's servers together who goes home and, completely on their own steam, contributes to an article on the company, and doesn't even mention it at the office, whether or not in expectation of financial reward for the deed, it's certainly a COI but arguably not a paid one. In the case of a salaried company PR or sales person or evangelist, especially the leaders who aren't just writing what they're told but are the people who are expected to find things to write about and places to write them, anything they do, 24/7, that falls under their job responsibilities, including writing about their company anywhere in any medium, is specifically the work they're paid to do. In that case, it's paid editing. Largoplazo (talk) 00:14, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Wedderkop


Wedderkop is very likely a UPE who's been mostly active on de_wp, but he has also made some suspicious edits here on en_wp in the Akilnathan Logeswaran and Anders Indset articles. The Logeswaran article had to be deleted because it was promotional; for those non-sysops with a decent knowledge of German, here is what the English Logeswaran article used to look like: de:Spezial:Diff/173438504. Wedderkop and Logeswaran also know each other in person, and I could elaborate on this further, but for anon reasons I won't. The Logeswaran articles for deletion discussion is also very interesting because of Wedderkop's ridiculous keep arguments, (i.e. blatant lies). And well, for the Anders Indset article, just look at this: Special:Diff/895916170/912893778. The added text is promotional and poorly referenced, it doesn't help with showing how the subject is notable. And as far as I'm concerned, adding more sources closely associated with a subject doesn't justify removing Template:third-party I reckon, does it? I have previously contacted User:MER-C on his talk page, but I suppose he's been too busy to have a proper look at this. 2A01:598:90F9:89C4:BD1B:B7EE:BB3D:AE (talk) 11:49, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Undisclosed paid editing?
Was given COI warning on 9-25, but continues to create article about non-notable subjects; userpage suggests a business. OhNo itsJamie Talk 21:56, 27 September 2022 (UTC)


 * They just re-created K. Kawaii after two previous deletions. I agree they look like someone who is paid to create articles for non-notables. Uhai (talk &middot; contribs) 10:12, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Indeffed by Bbb23 as nothere. FrederalBacon (talk) 16:36, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Draft:William Bishop, AfC abuse

 * WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Armaghan Muawiyah
 * recently active IPs
 * (Southampton City Council)
 * WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Armaghan Muawiyah
 * recently active IPs
 * (Southampton City Council)
 * WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Armaghan Muawiyah
 * recently active IPs
 * (Southampton City Council)
 * recently active IPs
 * (Southampton City Council)
 * (Southampton City Council)

There's something smelling odd here, with a question about the creator being involved in PR, and an IP editor taking over the AfC draft after the question was posted to the creator's talkpage.

The creator says he or she is not the IP so I have added the IPs to this report. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:33, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Per the user's talk page, a PR piece about the subject written by someone with the same name as the editor was written in the few days before the article was first created - I find it stretches credulity to believe there is no connection as the editor has said. I have also just gone through and checked the sources in the draft and a large number fail verification: from those with zero mention of the subject, to blatant contradiction of its claims (e.g. an album released by major label Sony sourced to a site that explicitly says the album was self-released), to ones about people with the same name but obviously not the same person (e.g. someone working as a professional six years after he was born). This kind of poor sourcing and overstated claims is often a hallmark of COI/promotional editing. Melcous (talk) 09:45, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Hello,
 * Just to clarify, I will of course review all the sources and correct them accordingly. I only edit when logged in, if other people are involved in the editing I will correct any other poor sourcing as well.
 * To further clarify I’m a therapist professionally, and I do not work for any performing artists.
 * Kind Regards,
 * J.H. JohnEricHiggs (talk) 13:00, 28 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment there is also an open WP:SPI case filed by at Sockpuppet investigations/Armaghan Muawiyah which sheds more light on the history of promotion of this person. Liz, do you think perhaps a check user should be requested for this account and IP? Melcous (talk) 13:39, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment moved to article space again; now listed at Articles for deletion/William Bishop (performing artist) ☆ Bri (talk) 17:01, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Another autopatrolled UPE


It was obvious when they started pushing Nigerian spam like Articles for deletion/Kiriku (a spam page created by a global spammer) and Articles for deletion/Grace Ofure (where they did everything to save it) and then this (Articles for deletion/Adenekan Mayowa. Nazan Saatci is their oldest client as they did some Urdu translations of their website. There are a plenty more in their profile. For Nazan Saatci, Doreen Majala, Calin Ile, and Lisa Punch, explicit private evidence is available. 2A02:C7C:40:2500:31F2:747A:76A6:814 (talk) 22:53, 22 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Any chance they're related to the global spammer? If they're operating in areas a sock operator was working in, and defending sock work, and socks are defending their work, might be worth an SPI. FrederalBacon (talk) 23:00, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
 * In this case I think it is unlikely that they are the same. It seems more likely that they were hired separately or by the other UPE editor. - Bilby (talk) 04:50, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I'll give them a bit more time to respond. If they don't I may have to block unless they agree to meet the ToU. - Bilby (talk) 23:52, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Given the lack of edits since the COIN report, I’d say a namespace block would be warranted at any time, to prevent them from flying under the radar until this report is gone. If they engage, the paid editing can be dealt with. If not, takes care of the issue of the paid editing anyway. FrederalBacon (talk) 00:24, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree - I normally give a week to respond, but I won't wait that long. If they haven't responded in the next two days I'll block unless they start disclosing. In the meantime I've removed auto patrolled as that isn't going to stay even if they disclose. - Bilby (talk) 00:53, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * User blocked. They've had enough time to respond. I'm open to unblocking if they start disclosing per the ToU. - Bilby (talk) 22:15, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * They requested unblock shortly after 24 hours after the block, but didn't respond here, or edit at all, for several days before the block. How convenient. Nice job, they're not flying under this radar. FrederalBacon (talk) 06:31, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Ariana Raykotto


Page is almost exclusively edited by a user whose username matches the article subject. The only non-Raykotto edit I can see through the page history is an edit where it was requested for speedy deletion. DizzyTheMan (talk) 18:03, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Student Organisation of India


They are including their name in each and every article. I have mentioned only three.-Satrar (talk) 16:04, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I've made a report to WP:ANI. It is really out of order doing this. It seems to breaking every policy I know.   scope_creep Talk  08:56, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Note, I've closed the ANI thread per WP:FORUMSHOP, and the COI noticeboard anyways is in line with WP:COICOIN.—Bagumba (talk) 09:34, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Looking over the edits, it seems to me a case of someone who doesn't really know how the Wikipedia works. Isabelle 🏴‍☠️ 09:42, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * It wasn't forumshopping. It not a problem for this board, i.e. not a conflict of interest.   scope_creep Talk  13:29, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Your ANI post said they were writing about themselves, and they had received a COI warning a month ago. It wasn't clear that you had another issue; it also might have been clearer, if that was your intent, to have closed this thread, instead of leaving concurrent ones open. Regards. —Bagumba (talk) 15:23, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Akinnubi_David
Only editor of this article appears to be Akinnubi himself. DizzyTheMan (talk) 22:34, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Travis Banks


Unsourced crosswiki edits, specifically, this wrestler’s career in Mexico and nothing else in both eswiki and enwiki. Also, several uploads to Commons.MexTDT (talk) 04:15, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Konstantinos V. Petrides


OscarKoryagin created both these articles, which respectively are about an academic and an idea concieved by this academic, with almost all of their edits relating to them. The article on the academic was created nearly four years ago in November 2018, with intermittent editing since by Koryagin, while the second article was created today. They appear to have a close association with Konstantinos per a 2018 edit in which they said By the request of Konstantinos I've added a "See also" section, as well as "External Links" section. Their editing around the subject and the idea look to be heavily promotional. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:35, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I endorse your interpretation of this as a conflict of interest, those articles look purely promotional and should probably be WP:G11'd once OscarKoryagin is blocked. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 20:46, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Added 213.182.55.105 because they match the pattern at Konstantinos V. Petrides and use of "we" in edit summaries as in "We have checked..." and "... we cannot find..." Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 21:00, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks y'all. See also the activity today of IP 2.96.64.65, which appears to be OscarKoryagin editing while logged out. I've added them to the above list. Generalrelative (talk) 21:09, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I concur with the suggestion that these pages be deleted as spam. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 16:51, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I G11'd the "Konstantinos V. Petrides" and its now gone.   scope_creep Talk  15:34, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr


Persistent edit warring via multiple accounts to include promotional content, with copyright issues. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:83FA (talk) 13:18, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Yip, both seem to be edit warring in concert, to protect the "Reputation" section of the article and enforce a promotional viewpoint which breaks WP:NPOV. Also acting in concert to promote their client list and clients. Both of them removed the "Advert" maintenance template which ethically they had no right to touch as its a brochure article.   scope_creep Talk  14:48, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Not sure what it is about law firms and thinking they don't have to follow the rules but they're near the top of the list of industries that meddle in their own pages on wikipedia. I get the feeling that out "COI with extended legal warning" serves the opposite purpose of dissuading them because they generally get bolder after being shown it... Perhaps our "extended legal warning" is better at producing laughter than compliance. Added other likely COI users. Note that some early ones actually admitted to being "WH Public Relations" like 72.165.200.210  and 64.125.175.43 Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 15:00, 5 October 2022 (UTC)


 * has put it under protection, so that should put a stop to most of it. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 15:04, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

User:Kspoty


has mostly edited on Wikipedia to improve references and add short descriptions to articles of businesses and businesspeople. However, they recently created their first article, which is on a businessman by the name of Nick Wolny. I encountered the article during New Page Review and found the notability to be borderline, so I started digging into the sources on the page and looking online to see if this should be straight-up AfD'd. When looking through the sources added by Kspoty to the page in this edit, I noticed that they included five references to YouTube videos that were uploaded by Wolny (   . Ordinarily this isn't a terrible red flag, but they are all unlisted at this moment and appear to all have been unlisted at the time of their insertion into the article (see:     ), which indicates that Wolny (or whoever runs the YouTube account in his name) would have to have revealed the url to whoever actually found it and then inserted it into the page. Moreover, one of the videos had a mere 1 view at the time it was cited in the article, which is strong evidence that the editor has a close connection with Wolny.I'm leaving this here because this appears to be obvious undisclosed COI editing in light of the YouTube links that the editor inserted into the article, but also because if they are engaging in COI editing about a businessperson then the remainder of their edits about businesses and businesspeople might need a check. One of the sources cited in the article on Wolny and inserted by Kspoty was a link to a podcast put on by marketing/ad strategy firm BigEye, so I have a concern regarding potential UPE extending into short descriptions and the like. —  Red-tailed hawk (nest) 17:23, 8 October 2022 (UTC)


 * I got your message on my talk page and I have already responded regarding this on the article's talk page. If you think the person is not notable then why you didn't nominate it for AfD? Every reference I used are available on Google search including his website where you can see his press and youtube links which have been there since 2020 as I could find using web archive. If you click on those videos, you land on the youtube page. You don't have to search on youtube for these. And if I have any connection with him then I wouldn't be using this link by a marketing/ad strategy firm. You could have simply flagged the link or send the article to AfD instead of moving my all work in draft-space. Anyway, I am going to submit the draft but if you have to add anything, please do so on the article's talk page, not on top of the article. Kspoty (talk) 19:05, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

userWay

 * userWay
 * User:Allonm, User:Oshriboz90, User:Adisma2.

I am suspicious in this case because, having nominated the article for deletion, these SPA editors have appeared to defend it, which constitutes each of their only substantial activity in Wikipedia. BD2412 T 18:57, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Middle East International


Thus is not a standard COI notification. In fa ct, I'm not sure that the user has a COI. However, I'm at a loss on how to handle this and perhaps somebody here can give me some advice. The issue is a draft for a defunct magazine (Draft:Middle East International). The editor who created this clearly has put a lot of effort into this, but the draft has been rejected by two different editors. The problem is as follows (and I assume that the COI is the defense of the draft): Apparently in an effort to show the importance of this magazine for WP, the editor has been "seeding" numerous articles with references to the magazine (see Draft talk:Middle East International). Whether those citations are pertinent/warranted is mostly beyond me, as I don't generally work in this area. Advice welcome! --Randykitty (talk) 18:14, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Dear Randykitty, it is actually the other way round. I have a collection of Middle East International that my father subscribed to and I think they have pertinent information about places and events in Lebanon. Once I had started I thought some readers might want more information about my references. Hence the article now held in Draft. It has been an interesting six months and I don’t envy editors making the decisions on some of the oddities that turn up. I honestly think that my article is useful. I will continue using MEI as a reference until I am told to stop. So far none have been disputed or deleted. All the best. Padres Hana (talk) 19:13, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Having edited with Padres Hana for years, I have no doubth that he is telling the truth, and that he has no COI wrt Middle East International. Padres Hana has made countless very good additions to the history of Lebanese villages/places, sourced to Middle East International, a work I hope he will continue doing, Huldra (talk) 22:00, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

OfficialHSAKSA
Hassa bint Salman Al Saud, a daughter of the Saudi king, and a sister of Saudi-Arabias "strong-man" Mohammed bin Salman; is, AFAIK, most famous for ordering the beating of a workman on her estate in Paris, an incident covered by CNN, The Guardian , BBC , The New York Times , CBS , etc, etc. Recently, the article about her has been given a re-write, with headlines like: "Princess Hussa's contributions to the advancement of Saudi Arabia and its people",

Worst of all, her conviction in a Paris court has been re-written as: "Princess Hussa bint Salman Al Saud, as head of the household at the time, was found accountable for not preventing an assistant from engaging in an altercation..." She was in fact found guilty of ordering the beating.

The account behind most of this rewriting seem to be User:OfficialHSAKSA, comments? Huldra (talk) 22:18, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Kent Steffes


User says they are the subject of the article here. Says they have been editing the article for "decades" and that their friends sometimes make joke edits to the page. Tacyarg (talk) 19:54, 6 October 2022 (UTC)


 * I was a Professional Beach Volleyball player in the 1990's. The sport is very niche and has few followers. Since at least 2008 I have made the majority of the major edits to the page which is about me. I understand the COI and believe I am operating within its guidelines. My previous username was Elstuf and I made edits under that username. I do not remember why or when I changed usernames but now it is Kentsteffes which is the same as the Wikipedia page. Anyone can see that the edits I make are from my username. Because the sport is so niche, I believe that I add value to the page by providing updates for example I was recently (2020) inducted into the USA Volleyball Hall of Fame as the All-Time Great Male Beach Volleyball Player and have provided a source from USA Volleyball. USA Volleyball is a very legitimate source as they are the Sport's National Governing Body operating under the auspices of the United States Olympic Committee. Other sources I have provided are from one of the premier online Beach Volleyball coaching resources in the sport as well as Sandcast the sport's most popular podcast which is affiliated with volleyballmag.com the sport largest US online magazine that covers the sport of beach volleyball. Another update I provided for the page is that I have recently published a book on the history of the sport with co-author Travis Mewhirter a noted sport's writer, journalist and professional beach volleyball player. I believe these and my other edits add value. Any possible editor of this page would need to not only be current in the sport of beach volleyball but up to date on its history as well. It is true that my friends occasionally add "joke" to this page but usually subsequently remove them. I have no control over these "joke" edits. Kentsteffes (talk) 20:22, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * What possible benefit is there to a reader by repeatedly inputting the names and birth details of your children?--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 01:52, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
 * None, except if they're actually notable, which they probably aren't. Closest thing I got to a softball player whose name I will not say, in a Google search reveals no Wikipedia Reference result relating to the softball player herself. One of the first results on the second page is the Kent Steffes Wikipedia article. As for Kent, he is notable to an extent. DizzyTheMan (talk) 02:58, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oops, my comment broke and published itself. Lol. DizzyTheMan (talk) 02:59, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The names and ages of the children have been on the Wikipedia page for years. Why were they removed only recently? Was there a change in policy? If people believe there is no benefit to the readers than I am fine with removing all mention of them although my daughter is a notable softball player at her High School and in our community but maybe not notable enough as I am not sure what is the standard. Kentsteffes (talk) 04:00, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
 * There has been no change AFAIK - it's just that some things jump out to some unconnected editors, whereas others will let it slide. You have reverted a deletion to promote your children - one editor cited WP:BLPNAME in the edit summary, and requested you to not do it again, so it was deliberate. Putting it another way, often, well-meaning members of the public rush-in to take newspaper article content (or more recently 'new' media online) to swell the Wikipedia content. We had one young lady (14 years old) putting herself into her dad's article (a TV presenter) with social media content including contact details at her user page that had to be removed (no trace remaining) by an administrator. Another recent episode was a professional media person "It’s now my main responsibility to manage the *** C****** Group’s social media accounts..., instagram, facebook, twitter, tiktok, linkedin" (from Linked In) trying to make changes to the Wikipedia article; that's the sort of thing regular editors have to watch for. Letting it slide can encourage others into thinking Wikipedia is another form of social media.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 11:29, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I removed the child's name again. DizzyTheMan (talk) 12:02, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
 * For those of you who are following this thread, he's now editing again on his page. DizzyTheMan (talk) 13:56, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Just curious; what are the cases you are referring to? 49.144.200.165 (talk) 12:28, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I have avoided details for good privacy reasons, but here is an example of a Single-purpose account adding details to a WP:BLP that should not be in an encyclopedia.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 12:42, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Account is blocked now due to WP:IMPERSONATE concerns. If this person truly is who he claims to be, he can provide verification and be unblocked. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 19:01, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Account now unblocked because the user was verified to be the real-life Kent Steffes. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 15:55, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Khowar Academy, Rehmat Aziz Chitrali


Isn't Rehmat Aziz Chitrali and Khowar Academy notable enough to have its own article? Previous nominations for the deletion of the article have succeeded when sockpuppets and so-called "hoaxs" were made, but I believe these two topics are notable enough Muhafiz-e-Pakistan (talk) 21:25, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Louis Barry Rosenberg

 * Louis Barry Rosenberg (scientist)

About a year ago I made a COI report on Louis B. Rosenberg

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_182#Louis_B._Rosenberg_%26_Zoe_Rosenberg_%26_Unanimous_A.I.

The consensus there was that sneaky marketing was afoot, and many edits were made, including the deletion of Mr Rosenberg's article. Well, he has returned! And someone no doubt connected to him has recreated his page under a different name Louis Barry Rosenberg (scientist). I'm here to humbly propose salting every possible variation of this guy's name. BrigadierG (talk) 21:47, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I was involved with the last discussion, I agree with WP:SALTING the relevant article titles. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:59, 13 October 2022 (UTC)


 * I have checked the deleted version but it is substantially different to this article to ineligible for G4. I agree that the creation by Kazanstyle is suspicious, but it will need to go to AFD again if it is to be deleted. Slightly as an aside, it looks to me as if WP:PROF could be met here, in which case clean up is the solution. SmartSE (talk) 10:29, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm gonna take it to RfD and we'll find out. Last time the votes were 6 votes to delete, and one comment by a later-blocked sock.
 * BrigadierG (talk) 12:06, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Scriptural reasoning


Thelongview relative to WP:COI, states - "Conflict of interest (COI) editing involves contributing to Wikipedia about yourself, family, friends, clients, employers, or your financial and other relationships". Furthermore states, "Editors with a COI, including paid editors, are expected to disclose it whenever they seek to change an affected article's content". In accordance with policy, please would you disclose to administrators any apparent WP:COI relative to your editing pattern of the following inter-connected Wikipedia articles which are shown in your editing history, such as (for example) by reason of possible WP:COI due to possible current or prior employment/financial relationships, academic or work collegial/friends and other relationships. The relevant Wikipedia articles are: Scriptural reasoning, David F. Ford including your edits pertaining to him in other articles such as Scriptural reasoning to which he is publicly and financially connected, Oliver O'Donovan, New College, Edinburgh, CIP "Cambridge Inter-Faith Programme" edit which organization is also publicly and financially connected to Scriptural reasoning, Tony Blair Faith Foundation your edit relative to "Abraham House" and the "Cambridge Inter-Faith Programme". In the light of recent vandalism of the article within the last 24 hours by a new single edit/single use user account, in a rather similar editing pattern and style, it may be appropriate also to clearly confirm in writing non-connection in any way to this user Hands Frei.

As per WP policy, this message also posted on the user's own page for information.

Havruta (talk) 01:29, 13 October 2022 (UTC)


 * It is very unclear what the problem is - Thelongview has only made two edits in the last year and you've provided no evidence that they have a COI in relation to these articles. SmartSE (talk) 10:16, 14 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks for getting back to me, and I appreciate your time. The message was in the first instance addressed to Thelongview to himself (and as per WP policy also referenced on his user talk page) should he choose to disclose to admins any WP:COI issues in relation to his editing of the above Wikipedia articles which I have listed, some of which pertain to contentious issues, where editing by someone with an employed or remunerative or collegial/boss/friend connection to the article subject matter would be problematic and discouraged as per WP:COI.  The context is that the subject area relating to for example, the article Scriptural reasoning is contentious and controversial with high quality reliable sources WP:RS on different sides of the argument.  There is a body of criticism of Scriptural Reasoning published by academics from different faiths (Christian, Muslim, etc) and educational institutions.  Unfortunately, those involved in promotion or advertising of Scriptural Reasoning for funding, financial, career advancement and other gain have previously been involved also in promoting it through editing of the Wikipedia article on Scriptural reasoning vis à vis WP:PROMOTION.  There has also occurred removal of reliably-sourced published criticism of Scriptural Reasoning contrary to WP:NPOV.  The user Thelongview previously removed reliably sourced academic criticism of Scriptural Reasoning and recently there has been disruptive editing by a brand newly created user and single purpose account Hands Frei following strikingly the same pattern and style.  I will address this matter of disruptive editing elsewhere with admins, since WP:NPOV means that there be neutral reliably sourced academic criticism of Scriptural Reasoning alongside all the much more extensive material in the article which appears to promote it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Havruta (talk • contribs) 15:40, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Thelongview removed one paragraph of criticism by Al-Hussaini. Whether the paragraph merits inclusion in the article or whether it is WP:UNDUE is a content dispute. I do not see any evidence of COI or PROMOTION. --SVTCobra 16:06, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Fequiere Lucien


All edits going back to May 2015 have been WP:SPA, adding the band and its vocalist to Wikipedia. The largely unsourced 'early life' section of the draft seems to confirm the likelihood of WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY or COI. And the username. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:83FA (talk) 21:39, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Kazuyo Sejima


A self declared staff member of Kazuyo Sejima has been adding in unsourced information in the article. for what they say is "Make corrections to the text ahead of a prize ceremony tomorrow. She has been warned and actually came to her own talk page and said she didn't realize there was protocol, and then continued to edit war. VViking Talk Edits 14:18, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I've asked the editor to use edit requests. The editors seems to be content with no references like its `1999. Solid WP:COI   scope_creep Talk  16:44, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Vahaj Hanif


I warned VahajHanif about a COI since he is making a draft article about himself. I noticed that he seemed to have logged out of his user account and started using IP addresses to continue editing the draft, seemingly to evade the COI rule. Both IPs are from the same approximate location. Maybe a CheckUser can look into IPs used by VahajHanif prior to logging out? RPI2026F1 (talk) 13:50, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Deleted via G11. I don't see any of these IP editors actually edited this draft.   scope_creep Talk  07:56, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Helene Basu


The username of this contributor caught my attention, and unfortunately my attempts to reach out to them have gone unnoticed by them. I'm not entirely sure if their username is suggesting being a paid editor, or if they have a keen interest on the German anthropologist in question. BlueNoise (talk) 06:54, 18 October 2022 (UTC) Its been G11'd any so its moot.  scope_creep Talk  08:07, 19 October 2022 (UTC)


 * FWIW, they claim to be former students of Basu's, I'll provide guidance to them Jimfbleak - talk to me?  12:48, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

User:Mazamarkos






He is a sockpuppet of User:Maorkap3. They edit similiar entries in english and hebrew. his page in Hebrew and his draft in hebrew about barak rosen, paid, like most his other entries under the name Maorkap3. here he disclose that this is a paid entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:14f:176:abc7::503f:8f2d (talk • contribs)


 * That's not conclusive proof. It could be meatpuppetry, where there are two people coordinating efforts outside of Wikipedia. I've left an uw-agf-sock message for both editors. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 19:52, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Aly Farag


Alyelsayad has admitted to being Aly Farag. Subsequently, he as been warned about the problems and dangers of WP:AUTO, and yet he has continued to edit his biography, adding a list of awards won at his own university (these awards do not seem to be nationally or internationally significant) and a list of patents he has been awarded, in an apparent attempt to flesh out his prominence. This is a relatively new user; I recommend either a temporary block to bring his attention to the problem or a limited page block on his own biography. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 22:30, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Page deleted
User Pafsanias deleted Caprariu page which I've worked for reason "un-enciclopedic article" I want these be paid for. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Codrincaprariu (talk • contribs)
 * Apparently, you are speaking of the deletion of ro:C%C4%83prariu? That is a page on the Romanian Wikipedia. You should post your complaint on the appropriate notice board at ro.wiki. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 14:47, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Each language-version of Wikipedia is governed as an independent project, with its own sets of policies. If your dispute is on Romanian Wikipedia, then it will have to be resolved there. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 15:04, 22 October 2022 (UTC)