Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 197

Jason Maza


Subject of article, Jason Maza, was involved in the controversy around sexual assault allegations of their business partner (Noel Clarke). The article been subject to repeated attempts from various accounts and IP addresses, most recently Omranduk, to remove the section on the page relating to this and/or minimise Maza's direct role in the allegations (which is sourced from The Guardian and directly quoted).

A previous edit attempt by a different user contained a thinly-veiled legal threat and is obviously from someone linked to the subject: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2A02:C7F:F4D3:BB00:F479:FA7A:E375:CF06. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chichickov (talk • contribs) 18:13, 22 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Welcome, brand-new editor whose only edits are to push for including contentious material about a living person.
 * I wonder if you could consider ways to re-write that section that are both truthful and clearer. For example, the current quotations feel rather sensationalistic, which is the opposite of what an encyclopedia should do.  Maybe instead of alleging that if the allegations were published, then "that's me for the short term done", it would be clearer to write something like "Maza privately expressed concerns that the publicity would ruin the business he and Clarke were running".   WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:51, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks - this seems fair and this incorporated language is now in the article.
 * However, I still think there are continuing attempts to edit the article in the subject's favour. The most recent edit said "[the allegations] had nothing to do with Maza" (which is plainly untrue, as the sourced Guardian article clearly sets out how he was involved", and that "[the police] found no evidence of wrongdoing", which is misleasing (they said they would not launch a formal investigation). Chichickov (talk) 15:37, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi, @Chichickov. The articles about controversial people and events are often edited back and forth, as new information emerges and editors try to sort out what to say that's reasonably accurate and reasonably fair.  It looks like only you and one other editor have touched it since New Year's, though, so it's possible that this one is calming down.
 * The goal isn't to be either in his favor or against him, but to plainly explain what happened. In particular, in this case, it appears that the "involvement" was talking to victims after the fact, and it really must be clear that Maza did not commit any of the alleged crimes themselves (e.g., groping women, filming them naked without their consent, etc.).  In that sense, it is plainly true that "the allegations had nothing to do with Maza"; it was Clarke whom the women accuse of committing crimes. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:13, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
 * It was talking to victims after the fact on behalf of Clarke, as is clear in the source. The original text only said this, and did not state or even imply that Maza committed a crime. It is other editors who are changing this to more sujective language about whether he 'had anything to do with' what happened in a vague sense, rather than stating what he actually did.
 * The rest of the edits (claiming the police found 'no evidence of wrongdoing', not true, and threatening libel action against Wikipedia) do seem to suggest some involvement from someone close to the subject. Chichickov (talk) 10:21, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
 * To quote from the article "On a call on 10 April to a woman with allegations about Clarke, Maza said he did not want to put pressure on her, but, if the Guardian’s article did come out, “that’s Unstoppable done, you know, that’s me for the short term done”." ... "In another call, on 11 April, Maza offered a woman an in-person meeting with Clarke, who he said would apologise."
 * THis is not just 'talking to after the fact', it is working with Clarke and directly intervening to try and supress the allegations being made public. Again, I do understand the need to not suggest any crimes were committed, but this doesn't feel immaterial. Chichickov (talk) 10:28, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
 * It might be a bit of a leap to go from "that’s [ my business] done, you know, that’s me for the short term done” to "Maza was talking to victims after the fact on behalf of Clarke ". Can you see why that sentence might be interpreted as Maza talking to Clarke's victims after the fact on behalf of Maza?
 * I assume that Maza, like most people, had a very normal desire not to become suddenly unemployed because someone else was sexually harassing people, and I can imagine that desire might make Maza look for ways to prevent himself from being harmed by someone else's actions. I might have my own opinions on whether this was either a moral or an effective way to go about that – I understand that the usual playbook is to contact the journalist directly to say how shocked and appalled you are to hear about these allegations, and that you had no idea – but I'm not sure that trying to protect his own job is evidence of him acting as a representative of Clarke.
 * (I'm also not sure that "representing" Clarke would be an inherently bad thing: if someone owes you an apology, and is willing to make it [actually willing:  no evidence is presented to indicate that the offer was authorized by Clarke/his lawyers, and desperate people sometimes assert that others will apologize/their lawyers will let them apologize when no such apology will be forthcoming in practice], what's wrong with another person giving you information about that option, so you can make up your own mind about whether you want to hear an apology?  Deciding that women shouldn't be given all the information and options feels rather paternalistic.)  WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:32, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
 * This discussion seems to be more about content and language than about conflict of interest. Could this be discussed on the article's talk page? -- Pemilligan (talk) 19:37, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
 * This is for sure a COI issue and needs to be dealt here. Placing this under a big header called "Controversy" obviously doesn't comply with the neutral point of view WP:NPOV. Chichickov is an SPA who appears to be here to only post negative content about Jason Maza. She has done 3 reversal already, when the editor WhatamIdoing already suggested how the verbiage should be read on December 22nd, 2022. I was about to report her for Edit Warring when I saw this. Since we are discussing this subject here already, no need to discuss it on the talk page. The edits prior to her reversal are very neutral and explain the situation. @WhatamIdoing  would you agree that the edits before her reversal here are more neutral and better to have? We don't need to post many negative details here regarding these issues, especially when Maza himself had nothing to do with the allegations and Clarke was also not charged with any crimes. This section needs to comply with WP:NPOV and specifically WP:DUE.
 * In addition Chichickov should be blocked from making edits to this page due to her apparent COI. 70.170.29.25 (talk) 02:55, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I would also request that after an admin makes proper revisions, the page be semi-protected to 500+ editors. 70.170.29.25 (talk) 03:08, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think that any of the versions are ideal (e.g., the one you prefer says that police declined to investigate, but the source cited for that claim doesn't say anything about the police declining to investigate), and if we lock down the article so that only very few people can improve it, then it will be less likely that the article will be improved.
 * I tend to agree with @Pemilligan: We have no reason to believe that Chichickov is anyone other than a person who read a news article and tried to help out, just like we have no reason to believe that you are anyone connected with this event.  This doesn't seem to be a COI problem.  It seems to be a good-faith effort to make the article reflect the facts, as each of us individually understand those facts to be. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:48, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
 * There are several sources available that state police will not investigate and found no evidence of wrongdoing by Clarke. See Deadline, Variety, and BBC. The other issue is that posting a large header and calling it CONTROVERSY, when the issue had nothing to do with Jason Maza does not give the article a Due Weight WP:DUE, and would not comply with Wiki policies. I have opened discussion in the talk page, but we would need some more people commenting to resolve the issue. 68.1.199.238 (talk) 08:38, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
 * The Variety source doesn't mention evidence at all. The BBC source says "not enough evidence", which is different from "no evidence of wrongdoing".  And, of course, there's a wide gap between "not enough evidence to put Clarke in prison" and "Clarke's behavior towards his accusers was at all times irreproachable".  The police care about the former, but an employer might care about behaviors that don't rise to the level of actual crimes.
 * Similarly, it's not true that "the issue had nothing to do with Jason Maza". His supporters might say that Maza is an innocent victim, but he lost his job over this, and most of us consider losing your job to be "something" rather than "nothing". WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:32, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
 * @70.170.29.25 to clarify, I am not a 'her', and I'm not sure why you have assumed that I am.
 * @Pemilligan I have outlined on the article's talk page but I originally posted this here after a series of anonymous edits, the most egregious of which stated "there will be a number of legal cases involved moving forward, and do not what wikipedia, [sic] caught in the crossfire". Hopefully this wasn't unfair on @Omranduk who has not contributed since, but I thought a wider range of input would be valuable. Chichickov (talk) 21:14, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

User:M4t3uz


M4t3uz has been disruptively editing and moving Pollen (programming language) to mainspace, despite the article having no proof of notability or reliable sources. They claim here that they are a developer for the subject, and express that they are aware of such COI policies existing. Their unwillingness to comply has gotten into the WP:ICHY range at this point. Additionally, despite being told multiple times, they have not properly disclosed their COI to their userpage. ~ Eejit43 ( talk ) 15:35, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

User:Graysonar


User is creating non-notable unsourced articles about themselves, a band they are a part of, and an album they have created.

They have upload a selfie of themselves, attributing it as their own work, and added it to the biography and their username matches the biography subject name.  // Timothy :: talk  21:22, 19 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Blocked for one week by . Let's see if that makes a difference. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 18:18, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

User:Tezaswiniisrani


Hello. This is a SPA account for articles about this company and its chairperson. The editor has not responded to the COI requests. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 11:35, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Amritpal singh (activist)


Government is trying to build fake narrative about Amritpal Singh (activist) and using 'fake news' to build claims which are totally bogus. As of now, most of state sponsor media reported information which does not appears until end of last week. This fake information shouldn't be backed to support any claim in the article. Dilpreet Singh  ping   00:43, 21 March 2023 (UTC)


 * This looks to be an imported conflict from Talk:Amritpal Singh (activist). I think WP:DRN is the more appropriate venue to settle this dispute. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 14:10, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
 * The DRN report was closed as the core issue is about whether a source is RS and is also recommended by the closer to approach WP:RSN. There's active discussion on that at WP:RSN § Baaz News — DaxServer (t · m · c) 14:12, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
 * There's more than that I have created a few topic on the talk page regarding that. Dilpreet Singh   ping   19:11, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Issue with biased and one sided or pro state narrative and sikhs have a few resources who are reporting and state is propagting a false narrative. if it doesn't cover in conflict of interest in can create a WP:DRN CC.   Dilpreet Singh   ping   19:15, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
 * choose the accurate noticeboard - if you have problem with content then start a discussion at DRN. If you have problem with the sources which are being cited start a discussion on RSN Mixmon (talk) 19:23, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Latter Day Church of Christ


I'd like some more eyes here. Both have denied a COI... At around the same time using pretty much the same language "My years of research on the topics discussed do not amount to a conflict of interest" and "I do not have a conflict of interest regarding these pages, nor am I being paid to edit them. I have heavily researched these topics for years." Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 21:19, 22 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Yes, more eyes please! @Horse Eye's Back appears to have some compelling interest to remove one side of the information presented in citations, but not the other, even though both sides appear in reliable citations.
 * Beware the sound of one hand clapping.... Scovington42 (talk) 21:33, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I edit hundreds of topic area, I didn't even know that the Latter Day Church of Christ was a thing. The only COI I have is that I've bought a few things from Desert Tech over the years, excellent products so uh if there's any COI its not in the way you seem to think... Notice how I haven't edit warred with you? I've allowed every revert you and JTalong have made to stay. Not your enemy here. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 21:39, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
 * JTalong is a friend of mine. The area of "fundamentalist mormon" research is a very small community, (probably 100 or so regular authors of scholarly articles). Attend any Mormon History Association conference, or Sunstone conference in Utah and you would know what I mean.
 * I received a call from JTalong informing me that many of their edits had been deleted by @Horse Eye's Back from multiple articles. They asked if I had seen the changes; and I discovered one of them once I logged in.
 * I reviewed one article and reverted @Horse Eye's Back changes because they do not match the citation, a news article from news outlet "The Guardian." If @Horse Eye's Back wants to say that my edit matching the Wikipedia article true to the citation constitutes a conflict of interest, I am very interested to see him back this with logic. Scovington42 (talk) 21:56, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't have a conflict of interest. Would you describe this as presenting both sides of an issue? How about this ? Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 21:58, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Forgive me, I'm taking the time to familiarize with these....
 * The first article you linked appears to have 3 sources. Although the first article mentions one of the same men as the original posted assertion, the articles assertion does not match the citation. The OP assertion could be considered defamation.
 * The other two citations seem unrelated, do not match the assertion in any way. A drug related double murder that was highly publicized, from a mainstream Mormon family. Scovington42 (talk) 22:32, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Second article you posted is debatable.... Is this a page about a corporation or a living person?
 * Some dubious sources. Scovington42 (talk) 22:34, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Disclose.tv


The user appears to be a single-purpose account, with most of their edits being in relation to the Disclose.tv article. Last November, they vandalised the article and its talk page after the website reacted negatively to the article, prior to being warned on their talk page, which they subsequently removed. This month, they accused me of attacking their credibility when I mentioned on the article's deletion discussion that Disclose.tv had shared a Substack post that the user posted on the discussion. Isi96 (talk) 22:54, 23 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Apologies in advance for the length. However, given the complexity of the issues discussed I believe it is justified.


 * @Isi96 I value the importance of fostering a collaborative environment on Wikipedia and addressing concerns raised by fellow editors. While I understand your perception of my account as single-purpose, my edit history clearly demonstrates my contributions to various articles throughout the years, covering diverse topics from film, towns, and television [1]. I am committed to learning and upholding Wikipedia's principles and policies, most specifically The Five Pillars.


 * At every turn, I have done my best to communicate openly and address any issues that have arisen. However, I have encountered resistance and unfounded accusations from you, which raises my own concerns and can be disheartening and counterproductive.


 * The past incident you mentioned, involving a misunderstanding of the deletion processes resulting in a vandalism warning, is already resolved after consulting with administrators in November of 2022, and the warning was archived as it is a settled matter. You may review the edit history and the archived messages here. It is unclear why this is being brought up again, as our focus should be on addressing the article's content and maintaining a constructive dialogue.


 * Regarding the connection between Disclose.tv and Thacker's Substack article, it's essential to evaluate the source on its merits rather than de-legitimizing it based on who has shared it. When Disclose.tv cites a Bloomberg headline, am I to question the reliability of Bloomberg then? Or what about a Reuters article? Or Aljazeera? Or the International Criminal Court? The issue here is not the reliability of the source but rather the unfounded assumption that sharing a source diminishes its credibility. Our goal should be to discuss the source's value and merit, not to discredit it through Ad hominem attacks or disproportionately disregarding its merit. It is crucial to engage in a reasoned debate over sources without resorting to guilt by association or recklessly dismissing their credibility.


 * More importantly, the critique on my character is how you refer to me as a single-purpose account (SPA), "@DiamondPuma seems to be a WP:SPA, with several of their edits being in relation to the Disclose.tv article, including vandalism, for which they previously received a warning from @Liz. Isi96 03:51, 23 March 2023 (UTC)". With due diligence, it is evident that I am not an SPA, and bringing up the previously settled warnings from another editor as a direct response to my contributions is attacking my character and credibility, rather than addressing the points raised in the discussion. Furthermore, to reiterate, "...several of their edits being in relation to the Disclose.tv article..." suggests what exactly? That, according to SPA policy, editors are prohibited from contributing to a single article on multiple occasions? It's important to acknowledge that you have been the primary contributor to the Disclose.tv article, frequently preventing other editors from resolving the evident neutrality concerns, despite numerous references on the talk page and even an AfD now opened against the article because of this.


 * Moreover, it's self-evident I am not an SPA, so why are you trying to malign me as one? These are Ad hominem attacks. I find myself repeating that it is crucial to evaluate the content on its merits, rather than questioning motives or unfoundedly attacking credibility. It's starting to border on WP:ICANTHEARYOU, and WP:ETIQ which is concerning, but I remain hopeful that our exchange will amicably resolve itself, and we will establish consensus on the matter. I am confident that the Wikipedia community will make the proper judgement.


 * Furthermore, I'd like to boldly and clearly clarify my position with reference to the COI policy, which states that a conflict of interest involves "contributing to Wikipedia about yourself, family, friends, clients, employers, or your financial and other relationships" (WP:COI).


 * In the case of the Disclose.tv article, my actions have been driven by the desire to ensure that the content aligns with Wikipedia's policies on neutrality, notability, and verifiability. I have no personal, professional, or financial relationship with the subject matter, nor am I connected to any party that may benefit from my edits. My focus is solely on improving the article's quality and maintaining the integrity of the encyclopedia.


 * Even if I were an SPA, it is essential to differentiate between SPAs and COIs and not assume one implies the other without concrete evidence.


 * Moreover, I am willing to work together, address the core issues at hand, and ensure the article adheres to Wikipedia's neutrality and notability standards. But, I am often met with resistance and attacks on my character instead of engagement with facts and ideas. Despite this, I still believe that by engaging in a collaborative and respectful manner, we can uphold the integrity of the encyclopedia and present reliable, unbiased information. DiamondPuma (talk) 15:57, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
 * You keep spamming the deletion discussion with long walls of text with the same arguments over and over (like you've done here as well), and you've made barely any edits unrelated to Disclose.tv. Isi96 (talk) 23:29, 24 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Funny, I didn't even know about this COI discussion when I asked you if you could have a COI. I can understand why you think people are ganging up on you when this concern and the SPA are brought up repeatedly. We are not. We just have came to the same conclusions based on your actions on Wikipedia. OrestesLebt (talk) 06:02, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Even if I were an SPA (which I am not), or tagged as an SPA (which I am not) an SPA raising valid points cannot be simply dismissed. I will repeat, I have and continue to contribute to various topics other than Disclose.tv. I do not believe that Isi96 or yourself are acting in good faith. Thus, I am choosing to disengage you both in this COI discussion pending administrative review. Nothing productive is coming from these conversations. My words are continually and blatantly being misrepresented, and my points raised are not being addressed by Isi96 or yourself in any reasonable fashion. This is concerning as it's a blatant disregard for the collaborative process that is a core pillar at Wikipedia. DiamondPuma (talk) 16:23, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Alliance of Reformed Churches


I just found and reverted edits at Alliance of Reformed Churches by from June 2022. Thebiguglyalien ( talk ) 03:33, 27 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Good catch, . I left a warning about their username. Normally I would report them to WP:UAA but the account appears to be stale. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 14:39, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Philosophy Documentation Center


User has been editing for over 13 years (xtools), using Wikipedia for adding information about his business, adding mostly uncited content (using what he knows?) rather than adding citations to third-party sources. User had earlier exposed, but not 'declared', his connection though years later denied "being paid". Despite having edited within Wikipedia for so long, including 174 mainspace articles, and having been notified about COI policies, user has never seemed to read, understand and comply with COI disclosure requirements which, along with his 2019 denial, in my opinion places him firmly in the UPE class of editor over an extended period of time.

User was notified of UPE policy July 2019 @ User talk:Gleaman when he used "our site" in an edit summary (to which he replied he was not paid), and in January 2022 @ Talk:Philosophy Documentation Center for COI policy based on similarities of his username to a company official (which he didn't respond to). User has continued to edit and I see no instances of them ever having declared a COI on any article, talk page, or their own user page or user talk page.


 * Additional COI evidence:
 * User edits only during typical business hours for the same time zone (eastern time zone US) as the company's headquarters (xtools timecard)
 * User has edited only on the same topic as the company's business (SPA) (xtools articles edited)
 * Of over 2,500 edits, user has only ever made 6 edits on article talk pages and 16 to a user talk page (2010-2013, +1 in 2019), but those include:
 * In 2010, "We are orienting these pages on what we find elsewhere in Wikipedia from journal publishers. We want to cooperate with efforts to use best practices to make them more useful."
 * In 2010, user attests to being the author of texts published on PDC's website
 * And finally, the smoking gun, hidden on someone else's user talk page in 2012: "edits to Philosophy Documentation Center page ... our field ... our listing ... We are a team here and I'd prefer to have my name removed if the leadership team cannot be listed. I've tried to make my role in making changes to the site transparent by choosing my name for my user name, so I don't see how adding me but not the other members of our team is clarifying."


 * Affect on Wikipedia:


 * User's top three most-edited non-stub articles are comprised of 88%, 82%, and 91% of this user's content (per WP:Who Wrote That?)
 * User has created 69 articles (xtools):
 * The earliest one is the company Philosophy Documentation Center; the latest one is one of the journals PDC publishes
 * Checking only the first half of the list at Category:Philosophy Documentation Center academic journals, 26 out of 45 articles (57%) were created by user.
 * One of user's creations was deleted per AfD in 2015, and they recreated it in 2018.
 * User has created pages without any citations, which today still have no citations; three examples are here, here, and here.
 * Some of user's created articles have been tagged with Template:Notability; samples here, here, here, and here
 * Some articles have been tagged for other verifiability problems; sample here


 * Checking one of the B-level articles user edited we find two edits adding wikilinks to another journal-by-PDC article created by this user.


 * Checking one of the C-level articles user edited, we find 9 edits, all of which relate to PDC, and one edit which interestingly a PDC competitor''.

Grorp (talk) 00:14, 25 March 2023 (UTC)


 * And if you look at the username and the staff list on the website, you can see exactly the connection they have. 1AmNobody24 (talk) 07:13, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

E-commerce in India


This user added "ExpoBazaar" along with a link to the article. It appears to be an advertising-only account, judging by the username. 〜 Festucalex  •  talk  07:29, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Sanctioned Suicide


I feel the need to call attention to this single-purpose account that is infatuated with our article on Sanctioned Suicide and seems intent on whitewashing it as much as they can get away with. Examples: They are also unjustifiably concerned with the naming of WP:PUBLICFIGUREs, attempting to change it to pseudonyms or remove them altogether: –– Formal Dude  (talk)  13:41, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
 * 15 February 2023
 * 15 February 2023
 * 1 March 2023
 * 20 February 2023
 * 10 February 2023
 * While I did register to edit Wikipedia primarily because I had an interest in this article, I was unaware of many of Wikipedia's policies. I was made aware of the topic when I watched a Youtube video on the subject and when I saw changes being made to the article that didn't match the source or greatly distorted it, I felt the need to jump in and edit as well. As I said the other day, I don't have any CoIs.
 * I don't consider my edits whitewash, but previous edits made by others on the article seem to be made by a number of sockpuppet accounts and IPs that have been blocked, and I was trying to get the article back into a place where it was more neutral.
 * I am still learning the ropes, so you will probably have to be patient with me there. Kevinsanc (talk) 14:10, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
 * The article was created on February 10, Kevinsanc was created later that same day. Every of their edits are concerned with Sanctioned Suicide. Their username is Kevinsanc, yet they deny any involvement with Sanctioned Suicide. I myself came across Kevinsanc when they removed properly sourced information on Megan Twohey, which they considered "Poorly source and written by a blocked user, doesn't directly relate to this article." soetermans . ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 14:24, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I'd be concerned about the focus on Sanctioned Sucide by Kevinsanc, but they've been editing for only a little over 4 weeks - it is not unusual for a new editor to be focused on a single area of interest when they start editing, and I wouldn't tend to sanction for that. I don't see any evidence to show that they have a COI, although certainly they are involved in some way with Sanctioned Sucide. They may have a COI, but they also may just be a member, which isn't necessesarily a problem in itself. I do think Kevinsanc shows a clear bias, though, and because of that is at a high risk of tendentious editing, and at the very least should consider stepping back and working on other articles for a bit, as this probably isn't the best article or situation to learn your way around Wikipedia on. - Bilby (talk) 01:17, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I think Kevinsanc's edits can be read as WP:SEALIONING, although it is a bit early. It should be noted that Kevinsanc has disruptively removed reliably sourced material from the article, has engaged in watering down material in the article (insistence on adding 'alleged' in front of encouragement of suicide, adding false balance through unreliable sources, etc), and has frivolously requested citations for obvious or well-known information (such as stating that the .com and .net urls are accessible in Australia). I think it may be helpful for the editor to take a break from the article for now. :3 F4U (talk) 10:38, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Taking a break would be good. That said, he account is 4 weeks old - learning the ropes is always difficult, but it is certainly easier if it isn't in a topic you are passionate about. - Bilby (talk) 10:59, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I think a good compromise would be for his edits to be approved by a NPOV user before being added
 * Perhaps get him to make a sandbox he can work on? Trade (talk) 02:01, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

I think it's unfair for an user to be accused of CoI for bringing up perfectly legitimate BLP concerns. For the other parts i do not really have a opinion on.--Trade (talk) 04:34, 13 March 2023 (UTC)


 * They have no legitimate BLP concerns... –– Formal Dude  (talk)  04:44, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Well the inclusion of the names defintely raises legitimate BLP concerns as was discussed at BLPN. Whether or not we end up including the names, anyone who doesn't recognise this needs to be quickly learn that and be topic banned widely construed from BLPs if they don't. That is definitely a far more serious issue than whether Kevinsanc has a CoI, as shown by the fact that BLP is a WP:CTOP area. Nil Einne (talk) 22:21, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
 * With their names included in a multitude of reliable published sources, there are no legitimate BLP concerns in naming them. –– Formal Dude  (talk)  22:14, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Being named in some sources doesn't mean that they are not still private individuals. Their names being public is a necessary condition for naming them in an article, but it isn't a sufficient condition in and of itself, as our BLP requirements for naming or not naming an individual are not necessarily the same requirements used by sources. - Bilby (talk) 23:32, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Let me be more clear: Kevinsanc gave no reasoning for removing the names and there are no immediately apparent BLP concerns in naming them in the article. –– Formal Dude  (talk)  23:50, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, but there was an extensive discussion of the issues here. - Bilby (talk) 00:07, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I made my case for the removal in the BLP discussion. Kevinsanc (talk) 00:20, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I'd give the benefit of the doubt for the edits about the names, as the first time they removed the names without any justification was their third ever edit. (How can you expect someone to understand how to bring up BLP concerns when they've only made two other edits?) The only other time they removed the names was after a series of edits by a sockpuppet. Regardless it's not the individual edits themselves to be concerned about, but the pattern that emerges when looking at the big picture. : 3 F4U (they/it) 00:39, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
 * There was an extensive discussion about including the names on WP:BLPN that didn't have a particularly clear consensus. There certainly are legitimate BLP concerns (which you can read about in the discussion) with the inclusion of their names. Those concerns may be right or wrong, but they should definitely be seriously considered. I don't consider the fact alone of being concerned about the inclusion of those names to be good evidence of COI (without commenting on whether or not they actually have a COI, or their conduct generally, either of which I don't currently have an opinion on) Tristario (talk) 08:23, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

One of Kevinsanc's first contributions was to edit-war to include a citation to a pro-"Sanctioned Suicide" thesis paper in the article's lead, When I look up a link to that thesis in Google Search, I get two results: the university's website, and a Sanctioned Suicide forum thread, where someone posted that link 3 weeks before Kevinsanc's edits. That forum thread is about a YouTube video, presumably the same one Kevinsanc references in the first reply here. There are more issues with Kevinsanc's editing, including slow-motion edit warring, and false edit summaries (removing sourced material while incorrectly claiming in the edit summaries that the material wasn't in the source). Shells-shells already noticed a few instances of that, but there are more: diff1 (reverted), diff2 (reverted), diff3 (reverted), diff4 (reverted), diff5 (reverted). Along with a few which haven't been reverted yet: diff6, diff7, diff8, diff9. The issues go beyond potential COI. DFlhb (talk) 13:38, 17 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Agree with everything you've brought up having interacted with them repeatedly since the creation of the artcle. It does not seem likely that Kevinsanc is or has a close relationship with any of the owners/founders/administrators of the site itself (and no evidence has been brought up suggesting that they do), however the pattern of edits mentioned above and elsewhere do suggest that Kevinsanc is WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia. I think its highly important to note that Kevinsanc created their account less than 17 hours after I published the SS article and immediately began removing sourced material from the article. I also find it highly unlikely that the YouTube video Kevinsanc references is actually how they found the article, as the video in question does not name the site. To me, it is more likely that Kevinsanc is an ordinary member of the site who found the article through search results or the SS thread made on the article. Being a member by itself shouldn't mean anything, but when combined with their edit history, it gets more and more difficult to believe that they aren't here to WP:SOAPBOX. Kevinsanc's edits have in large part consisted of whitewashing of the article     , removing reliably sourced material critical of the site     , adding false balance     , and silently reverting edits without reason/while giving false reasons   . While my perception before combing through their edits was that Kevinsanc's edits were improving and getting less disruptive, a closer examination reveals that the only change has been that their persistent disruption of the SS article has become more subtle. These disruptive edits make up the majority of Kevinsanc's edits in article space, and make up the vast majority of their significant edits.
 * Kevinsanc's sole edit in mainspace outside of the SS article, consisted of blanking a section of Megan Twohey's article having to do with the site.
 * When I look up a link to that thesis in Google Search, I get two results: the university's website, and a Sanctioned Suicide forum thread, where someone posted that link 3 weeks before Kevinsanc's edits. I remember looking it up when Kevinsanc first added it and I remember seeing that too, completely forgot about it myself.
 * Side note: On my part, I'm sorry about participating in the edit-warring on the Master's thesis. Creating the article was around my ~200th edit so the only understanding I had at the time of "edit warring" was the occassional "You are engaging in an edit war" warning message I'd see on other people's talk pages (which led me to mistakenly believe that up to three reverts were generally allowed and that Kevinsanc and I could't have been edit warring because we were being polite in the edit summaries). Funnily enough my misunderstanding of WP:EW/3RR would lead me to make the post Talk:Sanctioned Suicide arguably after we had engaged in an edit war, but at least the edit summaries and the final message on the talk page led to some sort of a consensus. : 3 F4U (they/it) 17:50, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree that if there is a connection to the site it seems much more likely to be a user of the site (which I don't think alone constitutes a COI, since just using a site seems like an overly broad definition of a COI), rather than someone with a close relationship to the owner or admins.
 * In terms of the conduct of Kevinsanc, from what I'm seeing in the linked diffs is mostly not that egregrious. Some of the things they are saying aren't supported by the sources is strictly speaking true. eg. for this diff this source does not mention the subject of the article, for this diff saying that Galante and Small self identify as incels is arguably WP:OR and fails WP:V because the source supporting that does not say that using their real names. This article does still need to comply with Wikipedia's policies, and in parts I'm not convinced it does. I don't think that Kevinsanc's edits appear to have been particularly bad
 * There may or may not be some argument for sanctions (the edit warring isn't good), but at least right now I don't think I'm seeing a need for anything like indefinite blocking, there seems to be some good faith there Tristario (talk) 08:53, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
 * There may or may not be some argument for sanctions (the edit warring isn't good), but at least right now I don't think I'm seeing a need for anything like indefinite blocking, there seems to be some good faith there Tristario (talk) 08:53, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Relingnat


This user has been focussed entirely on adding a specific reference to as many articles as possible, usually without contributing any other content whatsoever. Here are some related diffs: 1 2 3 4 5. This request caught my eye as they are simply asking for the source to be added, only later requesting the addition of content along with that source. This is unambiguously a single-purpose account, and they clearly have some connection to the author or publisher of this source they have been adding. Actualcpscm (talk) 09:44, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

St Christopher School, Letchworth


This user suggested an edit to the article in question. The requested edit was to replace a person's surname in the article with their first name, which does not meet the relevant style guidelines. After asking about it on their talk page, an IP user responded. Apparently, this user 1. is aware of the relevant COI policies, as I mentioned them multiple times in the discussion, and 2. has no intention of following them. I understand that their requested edit is not particularly substantial, but I am worried that they show no intention of following relevant guidelines. Actualcpscm (talk) 16:22, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
 * User:Actualcpscm, these edits look like a joke, where somebody is pretending to be a former headmaster. As the school article is semi-protected and the account and the IP only edited on 17 March, I don't think any further action is needed. TSventon (talk) 12:41, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
 * TSventon Thanks for your reply. I had assumed that this kind of statement would be taken at face value, since COI editing is quite a serious issue, but I understand your reasoning. Thanks again, see you around. Actualcpscm (talk) 12:44, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
 * User:Actualcpscm, if the account is really used by the former headmaster, they are following WP:COIEDIT quite well. They have disclosed their identity through their user name and they have not edited article space directly. They have even showed other editors respect by keeping discussions concise. However the edits are somewhat incoherent and only continued for about an hour, which suggests impersonation to me. TSventon (talk) 13:29, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Crickdunia.com
User talk:Harshilcrickdunia continuously adding links of his blog/website to multiple Cricket related articles despite suggested to stop. Its seems he is the owner of the website or its employee. He should be banned from editing. He added his website external links at Brijesh Patel, Narendra Modi Stadium, 2023 Indian Premier League and at many more pages.Rock Stone Gold Castle (talk) Rock Stone Gold Castle (talk) 11:04, 29 March 2023 (UTC)


 * User has been blocked by - problem solved. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 15:48, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

User:BrandonAvi at David Butler (footballer, born 1945)
has claimed to be the grandson of David Butler (footballer, born 1945), and is now repeatedly adding unsourced content to that biography. Assistance welcome. GiantSnowman 17:35, 31 March 2023 (UTC)


 * sorry, as i've said it's not my intention to add unsourced content. i'm seeking assistance from you; now that i've made an obvious mistake on how i can source it.
 * today i went round to my grandparents house - sat down and wrote it with him as it hasn't been updated in a few years and he'd like to add more information to it. BrandonAvi (talk) 17:42, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia relies on reliable sources to verify information, especially about living people - essentially this means thinks like newspaper articles, websites etc. GiantSnowman 17:44, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
 * This might be useful, as a quick search. GiantSnowman 17:45, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
 * okay. so are you telling me i'm unable to update his page unless his life story is already in a newspaper article or website lol? BrandonAvi (talk) 17:46, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
 * we're talking about events that happened 40/50 years ago? there's limited information online.
 * the best source is himself! BrandonAvi (talk) 17:50, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
 * You are incorrect, . Interviewing your grandfather is original research which is forbidden on Wikipedia. You must use published reliable sources. This is mandatory and not negotiable. Cullen328 (talk) 17:52, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
 * okay. thank you for clarifying, i didn't know that.
 * i will not revert the edits and work on getting some more sources BrandonAvi (talk) 17:54, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
 * now that issue has been resolved; can this section be deleted? BrandonAvi (talk) 17:55, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
 * This section will be archived in due time. Cullen328 (talk) 17:58, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
 * alright, have a good weekend BrandonAvi (talk) 18:00, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Joanna Forbes L'Estrange (musician)


COI seems pretty clear in connection with these Oxford composers, and an association between the two accounts is possible. The most recent draft is problematic as a promotional resume. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 10:27, 2 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Please note: Joanna Forbes L'Estrange is married to Alexander L'Estrange as stated in the biographical details of draft wikipedia entry. I do know both musicians. As I am not an experienced wikipedia editor, would welcome some advise on what steps I need to resolve/address the COI? Fialsop (talk) 11:07, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
 * @Fialsopsee here: WP:COI and here: Plain and simple conflict of interest guide. Random person no 362478479 (talk) 13:43, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Fialsop, and User:JoFL'Evocals, PLEASE read those guidelines and declare your COI properly, on your own user pages and on the talk pages of the articles/drafts. Fialsop, I don't think you are JoFL'Evocals, but it seems clear to me that y'all discussed the matter, given the similarities between the two articles/drafts. Please note that I removed an enormous set of "External links" which don't qualify as such (see WP:EL) and which only added to the promotional/resume-like tone. Overall, what these need is more neutral writing, and less primary sourcing. Drmies (talk) 21:22, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

PowerBook


Linked to their website, with an edit summary that included "we found that there isnt an easy to digest Apple specification site, so we built one", but otherwise no disclosure of paid editing or acknowledgement of COI. Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  01:56, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

User:AlanD0192
has added entries cited to AlfredDeakin.com dating back to 2016. Their user page implies that is their website and the name they added on their user page is the same for contact on the website. 120.154.8.215 (talk) 05:38, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

User:JonWilliquette
@JonWilliquette has openly admitted to having a financial relationship with the subject of an article he has edited continuously, Creation Museum. He has been warned multiple times and shown no intention of adhering to relevant policy. His edits have shown clear bias and gone against long-established consensus. Actualcpscm (talk) 14:29, 3 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Thank you for mentioning this. I currently am employed by the organization, thus have a deeper understanding and knowledge of the organization to make credible edits to the information pertaining to the organization. Thank you for your consideration and respect. JonWilliquette (talk) 14:31, 3 April 2023 (UTC)


 * If you want 'consideration and respect' for yourself, you need to demonstrate the same for Wikipedia/WMF policies and guidelines. Starting with Conflict of interest, and the Paid-contribution disclosure requirements. You are obliged to make an explicit declaration regarding this matter when editing Wikipedia content to which it applies. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:43, 3 April 2023 (UTC)


 * User's name was changed to ; they are now blocked for WP:NOTHERE. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 18:33, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Cesare Angelini (author)


The original Cesare Angelini (author) article has been extensively created and edited by, who has stated on their talk page and at the article's talk page that they are a curator of Angelini's writings, so they have extensive knowledge of the person and his "scientific publications".

I and other editors have attempted to tag the article as COI, but the tag has been removed repeatedly. After more discussion with the editor, they seemed to have disappeared, and another editor has appeared in their place with a lot more continuing edits as well as removing the COI tag again.

COI tag removal #1 "icresead category, my username is the same of author because in Italia I contribute of Cesare Angelini scientific pubblication. I dont'see problem about that."

COI tag removal #2 "I'm curating form many years (since 1995) his pubblication. Scientific pubblications. I'm not directly connected for apolgze to the subject. The contributions are neutral, only of a cognitive nature."

COI tag removal #3 "(I added "cutural conflict of interest" topic in tak Article and Talk User. Thanks. If I'am curator of Cesare Angelini's writing I think this is helpufilly for write also neutre article. Where is the problem? I devolve my know-out to Wikipedia, in free and I got nothing in money or glory. Thanks for comprension.)"

I have tagged FabiusCesareAngelini for connected contributor, and added LitteralContributor to the list after observing the types of edit comments made are similar to FabiusCesareAngelini's.

Need to know whether the COI tag should stay and whether sanctions should be made on what the two editors can do to the article going forward. AngusW🐶🐶F ( bark  •  sniff ) 18:50, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Now there seems to be another editor that is starting to get involved. The editor shares the same name as the subject's references. Also, since the original editor has declared themself as a curator, need to know how to apply WP:CURATOR on their editing. Do they still get to edit freely or do they need to make edit requests? AngusW🐶🐶F ( bark  •  sniff ) 19:02, 3 April 2023 (UTC)


 * I have been studying Cesare Angelini (author) for a lifetime, it is my passion. I don't make money. I work for free just to bring his knowledge a little into the world of literature. I declared my COI in the talk of the article. But even though there is COI, i.e. since I am linked to the author, I don't see any problems of neutrality as stated in the warning. In the article I didn't make apology for Cesare Angelini (author), I only reported his life, works, with the support (see bibliography) of people recognized in Wikipedia. I don't think the warning of non-neutrality is right, if you think it is, leave it. What I have to say? Thank you. FabiusCesareAngelini (talk) 22:48, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Mara de Oro Awards


User has created an article about the awards (whose notability is dubious to say the least), which reads like an advertising piece. The problem is that he has not disclosed a potential conflict of interest as it seems that they received an award from Mara de Oro in November 2022. The article was created one month later. See:. User has disclosed their full name in their own user page. Please also note there is a checkuser request on Commons which may relate this user to other potential conflicts of interest, as they may be a paid-for user for non-notable artists related to (including but not limited to) Farandula Records and Paisclo. Bedivere (talk) 03:44, 4 April 2023 (UTC)


 * https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Caf%C3%A9/Portal/Archivo/Ayuda/2022/11#Premio_por_ser_Wikipedista
 * Before generating any kind of problem, I consulted with colleagues in the Spanish Wikipedia cafe. There they told me that there were no problems in receiving this type of award. At this point, it is shown that there is no conflict of interest or remuneration, I have only created articles that were not on Wikipedia and that I considered relevant. Thanks. ChuchoVCJMuzik (talk) 04:08, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * @ChuchoVCJMuzik Do I understand correctly that you received the prize for your contributions to Wikipedia?
 * @Bedivere What makes you say that the notability of the prize is dubious? It has been awarded since 1955 and according to this it is the most important prize in Venezuela (no idea whether there is any truth to that). And it may be relevant to know that Chucho wrote the Spanish article on the prize in July 2022, so before receiving the award.
 * I have no position on whether receiving an award creates a COI for that award. I see arguments for either side. Of course encyclopedic tone and neutrality are a must, but that is independent of any COI.
 * Random person no 362478479 (talk) 04:27, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * @Random person no 362478479 I appreciate your intervention. How can I improve this article? The Mara de Oro has been awarded effectively for more than 70 years, I even created it on Wikipedia in English because many Latino artists received this award, which in Venezuela is one of the first (fifth on the list). I don't think this is promotional, it's informative and encyclopedic. The Mara de Oro also recognizes many arts, skills and professions, therefore, I don't know if another creator will receive this recognition as Wikipedian of the Year next year. ChuchoVCJMuzik (talk) 04:37, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * @Bedivere Regarding the information I have on my user page, the same day I asked about the Mara de Oro, if I could put that on my page, several users recommended that I remove content from my user page because it seemed promotional. After removing this content, they told me it was fine.
 * https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usuario_discusi%C3%B3n:ChuchoVCJMuzik#P%C3%A1gina_de_usuario ChuchoVCJMuzik (talk) 04:45, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * This is not about the Spanish Wikipedia and that thread does not say much anyway. You created an article about the awards after being given one. You should have declared here (you did not) you had a conflict of interest. Don't pretend you don't have one: you publicly received an award from them! Bedivere (talk) 04:53, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't want to go on with this, Bedivere. You've been following me for more than a week now: my articles in English, in Spanish, in Commons, anyway.
 * The evidence is here, let others decide. Whenever I try to defend myself, you refute everything I say and I'm already running out of this. I love Wikipedia, but I also have a life, a family, church activities, and I need to rest. Thanks for the investigation. ChuchoVCJMuzik (talk) 05:11, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

off-wiki evidence
So I've been given off-wiki evidence (an instagram post by the article subject containing a memo from some sort of PR firm called Premium Content Writing) that proves UPE on a BLP. Can I post that to the talk of the article? It's not a current issue, this happened in 2019, the article was deleted in 2020, and I've just recreated it.

Somewhat tangentially, the memo states that the "we...are writing scholarly articles about (the subject)". This was pretty terrifying; the best source for this subject is a journal article. The journal does exist, the author does exist. But jeez... Valereee (talk) 11:35, 4 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Is there suspicion of present-day UPE activity on Woni Spotts? I see evidence of a WP:SPA since you recreated the article. If a connection between that account (or any others) and the aforementioned PR company emerges, then I would say yes - that is evidence of both past and present UPE. But for now, I don't think past evidence of UPE is relevant.


 * I looked at the journal publisher (SAGE Publishing) and it looks to be legit. I also checked the list of predatory publishers and they weren't on it. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 15:29, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * @Drm310, yes, I saw that SPA come in. Highly likely they're part of Spotts' PR team, or maybe just a rabid fan who saw a social media post somewhere, but they didn't add anything bad so I'm just watching. Other than that there's no current suspicious editing, and I'm going to give myself a w-ping to make sure I check both articles every week or so for as long as it seems necessary. Valereee (talk) 15:38, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Jonathan Meath
This article is mostly advertising and promotion, probably put in by a friend, who is no longer in Wikipedia. The supposed awards are not about him but about a team he was associating with, and the career as a TV producer is not really notable. While there are sources, they're really entertainment-y fluffy junk, not real news. This kind of junk doesn't really belong in Wikipedia because the article is really one big fat ad and as such violates Wikipedia's guidelines against spam.--173.161.255.82 (talk) 14:05, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

COI, may be removed? May someone remove it?


Hello Everyone,

I created the Cesare Angelini (author) article.

I have been studying Cesare Angelini for a lifetime, it is my passion. I don't make money. I work for free just to bring his knowledge a little into the world of literature.

I declared my (cultural only) COI in the talk of the article.

I don't think there are problems of neutrality as. In the article I didn't make apology for Cesare Angelini, I only reported his life, works, with the support (see bibliography) of people recognized in Wikipedia.

But some users thought they put the COI warning in the article. The non-neutral notice discredits the work.

Given the neutrality of the article, the great work I did writing it, all in favor of Wikipedia, can anyone other than me remove the COI warning from the article?

Thanks Everyone for your attention. FabiusCesareAngelini (talk) 11:31, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * There appears to be multiple conflicted users there User:LitteralContributor, User:FabioMaggiAngelini and User:FabiusCesareAngelini so I think the tag can stay. Theroadislong (talk) 13:06, 4 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Houston, we have a problem.
 * has a disclosed COI on Italian Wikipedia (it:Discussioni utente:FabioMaggiAngelini) where he identifies as Fabio Maggi, the subject's great-grandson. I can see that in the last six months, he was warned about it-wiki's COI rules and, at one point, was blocked one week for edit warring.
 * identifies as Fabio Maggi on his userpage. If he is the same individual as the one above, then he definitely has a COI, but is also engaged in sockpuppetry.
 * is a new single purpose account that has not responded to any notices yet. No comment on whether they are connected to the other two.


 * As you were the one who posted to this noticeboard first, we will give you the opportunity to disclose if you control either or both of the other accounts, and whether you are the same Fabio Maggi as the account "". Depending on your response, I may decide to escalate this to WP:SPI. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 17:36, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I created the account FabioMaggiAngelini by mistake, because I couldn't access Wikipedia. In fact I only used it for 2 digits, then never used it again. However, there was no COI purpose in using this account, just wanting to continue making changes. Then I let it go.
 * LitteralContributor it is another who studies Cesare Angelini.
 * Thank you. FabiusCesareAngelini (talk) 17:54, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I believe all three to be the same person, as is the IP .  Catfish  Jim  and the soapdish  18:01, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Is associated with Fabio? Do they work with the same organization or have correspondence with Fabio outside of Wikipedia?  AngusW🐶🐶F  ( bark  •  sniff ) 19:35, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Same person  Catfish  Jim  and the soapdish  19:37, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

I have filed a report at Sockpuppet investigations/FabioMaggiAngelini due to the editor's admitted socking with one account and refusal to address the concerns with the other. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 22:30, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Checkuser has ✅ the named accounts to each other, all now blocked. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 23:42, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Polarr
Chris Troutman ( talk ) 23:48, 5 April 2023 (UTC)


 * The company would like to update the page about them to include recent updates and new products. Polarrinc (talk) 00:12, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Not sure what the best strategy here is. Would make sense for the subject of the page to be able to update their page. Polarrinc (talk) 00:13, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
 * No, it would not make any sense at all for the subject of an article to make substantive changes. It is not "your" article. Wikipedia is not interested in what a company has to say about itself. What matters is what secondary sources say. That is why the article is protected. You can propose changes on the talk page like other company representatives do.
 * I have blocked your account as a username policy violation, and you and your associates have engaged in undisclosed paid editing, which is not permitted on Wikipedia. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:33, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I think you misunderstand what Wikipedia is. Imagine this website as a slam book for the amusement of our longterm volunteers. The subjects don't get a vote. As a consumer, you should never want to have articles about politicians or businesses written as propaganda (and I mean that in the nicest way). For that reason, neither you nor your colleagues can have a place on this website. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 00:57, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Going through the article history, it looks like this article has attracted COI editors from the very beginning. Ever since it was created in 2014, there have been a number of different editors that added large swaths of promotional text. Makes me wonder if there's a coordinated editing campaign on behalf of the company. Miracusaurs (talk) 01:21, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Osteopathy


An editor using the name of a practicing osteopath putting a positive spin on the osteopathy article? That can't be a coincidence. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 23:49, 5 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Not a postitive spin, just a fair view of the profession. The cited research articles are held to the same standards that all other medical treatments are held to. I do not promote or advertise myself or any of my affiliates. Furthermore I do not promote osteopathy as a field anymore than discussing its potential as a viable treatment of disease. The previous article was actively discounting any validity to osteopathy in the face of real scientific evidence that I have referenced. If you have a suggestion for making this article more neutral I welcome it. The way it stood before was actual slander against the profession coming from a persons point of view that has a certain belief system against osteopathy and was not at all a neutral point of view. DrJacobFischer (talk) 00:06, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I hope you step back and take a look at how things have gone for you. You misunderstood an article, not realizing there are two articles for the two different types of osteopaths. You are a DO, a physician, and of course you took offense because you were editing Osteopathy, the wrong article, the one about non-physician osteopaths. Step back, sleep on it, and approach this from a totally different angle. Read both articles. Keep them separate in your mind. -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 05:34, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

User:Tamasknecht/sandbox


Username is similar to the person they're writing about, so probably an autobiography. A diehard editor (talk &#124; edits) 16:11, 6 April 2023 (UTC)


 * His user page confirms that it is the same person. No sign of notability for the person, his business, or his music. Random person no 362478479 (talk) 14:28, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Recommended the userpage for speedy based on blatant webhost violation. --CNMall41 (talk) 16:24, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Top 10 Wikipedia Page Creation Services to Look for in 2023
The headline works quite well here, too. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:06, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

"Whether you need help researching sources or just want someone to write the content for you, any one of these organizations will be able to assist in getting your page up and running quickly and efficiently. So, if you’re looking for an easy way to get on Wikipedia without having to worry about all the details involved in writing a page yourself, look no further than these top-notch Wiki creation agencies!" Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:17, 16 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Oh brother... It's not like as if we don't play whack-a-mole with them. Blake Gripling (talk) 10:28, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
 * It's pretty obvious to me that this is one company pretending to be ten different companies so that it can create an illusion of the reader having a number of options from which to select. In fact, I would not be at all surprised if a person paying any of these entities for services found their money disappearing with nothing to show for it. BD2412  T 11:56, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Similar articles have been reported here before, sadly. Given that several companies listed are presumably controlled by the Abtach creation farm, I wonder what incentive blogs like this gain from producing this brand of churnalism. SamHolt6 (talk) 12:11, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Some money? Traffic? For me, it's currently #6 at Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:25, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
 * +1. Though in some cases, I think it can be a monthly payment thing, since you have to pay them to guard your page when it's up. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:28, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Then again, it could be a least partly separate whatevers. Wiki Counsellor seems less grammatical than the others. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:34, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

And then there is this posted at AfC. Different name than any listed in this article but website looks similar. --CNMall41 (talk) 08:33, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
 * FYI, here is a "Better Business Bureau" complaint against WikiCreators LLC, marked resolved (though it is not clear whether it was resolved because the customer got their money back, or got their article posted). BD2412  T 20:54, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Mark Lane (broadcaster)


Self-evident matter here, the user in question has the same name as the person who is the subject of the article. This user has only ever edited this one particular Wikipedia article. Musashi1600 (talk) 10:48, 9 April 2023 (UTC)


 * User has been blocked for WP:IMPERSONATE. The article might need to be cleaned up after their changes. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 21:30, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Shahrzad Rafati


There is currently a dispute between popular Youtuber h3h3productions and mentioned person above and company they are CEO of (BroadbandTV Corp). User Reignfalls is actively editing both pages but contributions by users date back several years to only those pages. Reignfalls is possibly the person mentioned above or involved with the company. Fuser55 (talk) 15:52, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
 * , It appears they properly removed a section that was added by an WP:SPA. Same thing here. Can you show evidence of the COI? Maybe I am missing something here. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:58, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Courtesy ping for . CNM41, adding missed/broken pings after a comment has been published is harder than it should be. See H:PINGFIX for ways that work. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:24, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. Didn't know but do now. --CNMall41 (talk) 07:15, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Steven Harris Ramdev


SPA editor, who's only work is on this article. There are some of the usual signs of UPE that NPP patrolers look for. When the COI template was placed on their talk page, rather than responding, they simply deleted it. Another indication of UPE.  Onel 5969  TT me 18:21, 30 March 2023 (UTC)


 * @Onel5969 The deletion was by mistake. For your kind information, the article has been approved under the articles of creation and graded as c class. It has passed all the requirements of notability guidelines and has enough press to substantiate the article. The changes addressed by the user has been take into consideration. The grammar for the same is rectified and written from a neutral point of view. Kindly remove the COI template, if you are satisfied with the changes. Once again, the articles meets all the standars with respect to Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Indiantalentnews123 (talk) 04:52, 31 March 2023 (UTC)


 * That in no way addresses the issues raised in the post you deleted. Do you have any external relationship (personal or professional) with Steven Harris Ramdev, and have you received any form of payment for your edits to the biography in question? AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:09, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
 * @AndyTheGrump No. I don't have any kind of external relationship (personal or professional) with the entity. I am writing articles that covers Indian talents in specific. I am new to wikipedia as an editor, and I am still learning a lot of things in Wikipedia. Also, I have not received any form of payment for the edits to the biography. It was only through research, and news articles, publications and magazine. I hope, your question has been addressed. Thanks. Indiantalentnews123 (talk) 05:39, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
 * You have no connection to this individual, and yet your entire editing history concerns him? Why the emphasis on one person? Are the no other 'Indian talents' you could be working on at the same time? AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:53, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
 * @AndyTheGrump Yes, this is my first article. So I am making sure I have all the information about the entity added. i am trying to refer to as many news sources as possible. On a parallel note, I am also researching on other individuals and I will be creating articles for them as well, very soon. Since I am new to this wikipedia editing, I am still learning. Please understand my thoughts and give me some time for my research. I will surely be creating articles for other individuals in a few days. I am not emphasizing on a particular person, I am making sure I have covered everything about the entity that's required. In a way, it would be easier for me to create articles for other individuals, considering the experience gained from editing and creating this one. I hope you understand. Thank you. Indiantalentnews123 (talk) 06:14, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
 * - How did you obtain the photograph you used in the article? Onel 5969  TT me 08:44, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
 * @Onel5969 I obtained this photograph from the person who clicked it. It was shared by the photographer through mail. I have given the credits for the same. The image is used with the permission of the photographer. Thank you. Indiantalentnews123 (talk) 09:49, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
 * So you do have a connection with the subject, you are in communication with their photographer. This would be an improper way of uploading an image- the photographer should be the one to do it. 331dot (talk) 09:54, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't have a connection with the subject. I communicated the photographer through research. The entity had shared information on their social media regarding the same. I got this information, communicated the photographer and updated the image on wikipedia. This is in consent with the photographer. Also, the photographer doesn't know the technicalities of uploading an image on wikipedia. I have added the same on the photographer's behalf and consent. Thank you. Indiantalentnews123 (talk) 10:04, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
 * How do we know that you have the photographer's consent? Did you post it somewhere?  The photographer is free to learn the process just as anyone else is. The vast majority of the time the photographer must be the one to upload an image if they want to release it for use under Wikipedia's license(which allows for reuse for any purpose with attribution).  So the photgrapher took the image without this person's knowledge? 331dot (talk) 10:09, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
 * In addition, what is your relationship to the photographer? Onel 5969  TT me 13:49, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
 * No personal relationship with the photographer. We engaged in conversation on a professional note. The photographer has received consent from the entity and in turn, the photographer has given his consent for uploading it on Wikimedia. As per your guidelines, I will instruct the photographer to upload the same from his end, if possible. Thank you. Indiantalentnews123 (talk) 15:15, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
 * @Indiantalentnews123, which three of those 35 sources are the ones you're using to support a claim of notability? Because it looks like a lot of them are from affiliated sources such as WorldSkills. Valereee (talk) 15:36, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
 * https://pib.gov.in/pib.gov.in/Pressreleaseshare.aspx?PRID=1749281
 * https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/bengaluru-student-sends-paintings-letter-to-pm-modi-receives-praise-2519732
 * https://www.aninews.in/news/national/general-news/karnataka-artist-expresses-gratitude-after-receiving-praise-from-pm-modi20210827135415/
 * https://www.news18.com/news/education-career/bengaluru-student-sends-paintings-to-prime-minister-modi-receives-praise-from-pmo-4132652.html Indiantalentnews123 (talk) 16:17, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Press releases are NOT reliable independent sources. Theroadislong (talk) 16:21, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
 * https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/bengaluru-student-sends-paintings-letter-to-pm-modi-receives-praise-2519732
 * https://www.deccanherald.com/city/top-bengaluru-stories/heartwarming-bengalurean-artist-wows-pm-modi-1023844.html
 * https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/pm-modi-praises-bengaluru-student-for-his-paintings-views-on-public-health-101630032504889.html
 * https://www.deccanherald.com/content/498992/city-students-give-colour-their.html Indiantalentnews123 (talk) 16:24, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Please do help me with editing the grammar for the page. I feel it would help me in creating new articles too. I need to write that in a specific tone. Indiantalentnews123 (talk) 16:27, 7 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Multiple citations to exactly the same minor story do nothing to indicate any enduring notability. A young artist sent Modi a few paintings. He received a letter of praise in return. You can't construct notability around a letter of praise. That isn't in-depth coverage of the individual as an artist (per WP:ARTIST), and certainly doesn't demonstrate the level of coverage required to meet WP:NBASIC requirements. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:34, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
 * It is a major story and the news coverage is completely about the entity. So you must read the news coverage carefully and do your research. Please stop pointing out minor or silly things that are baseless. And please don't Target a specific article for your own deeds. Thanks. Indiantalentnews123 (talk) 16:53, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Is there a particular reason you refer to the subject of this article as "the entity"? 331dot (talk) 16:43, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I have sent it to WP:AFD, Indiantalentnews123 is now edit warring to include copyright violation photograph as well. Theroadislong (talk) 16:53, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Listen, I don't know about the usage of Wikimedia commons as much as Wikipedia articles. I though the image was getting removed purposefully without any reason. That's why I had to add it back. You can explain your reason for the issue here. thanks. Indiantalentnews123 (talk) 16:55, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Neither Wikipedia nor Commons will host copyright-violating content. AndyTheGrump (talk)
 * yes, the news publication are completely about the entity. It has been rated c clas under articles of creation which proves enough notability. Please stop unnecessarily targeting a specific page. Indiantalentnews123 (talk) 16:56, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia class ratings are the opinion of an individual contributor, and they do not demonstrate notability. And since the article has been nominated for deletion, for reasons already amply explained, there is no point in discussing the issue further here. The decision will be made at AfD according to normal Wikipedia policy, in accord with Wikipedia criteria. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:06, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
 * this is totally wrong Mr.andy. you can't end the case without the consent of the editor and also on sufficient evidence backing your claims. I feel that a group of people are targeting this specific page for various reasons and I would like to appeal. Sending this article for deletion is completely wrong. Indiantalentnews123 (talk) 17:15, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
 * This is not a court of law. There is no 'case'. If you wish to comment at the AfD discussion, you are free to do so, but I strongly advise you to read up on relevant policy first. And cut out the crap about 'targeting', since it is clearly baseless, and continuing to make such unfounded allegations is liable to result in you being blocked from editing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:19, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
 * No, the initiator of a discussion does not get to keep it open indefinitely. I have blocked you from the article involved itself, though you may comment in the deletion discussion. 331dot (talk) 17:22, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Five days later, the creator of the article tried to fake a keep result multiple times (1, 2, 3). Pinging 331dot because you pblocked them earlier. Liliana UwU  (talk / contributions) 06:07, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I got a notification stating that I am free to remove the template by adding this below code. That's why I removed and added. It was displayed above the template.
 * Indiantalentnews123 (talk) 06:11, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * You're greatly misunderstanding. Liliana UwU  (talk / contributions) 06:13, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Okay then please add back the templates. Thanks. I have been so depressed by answering to all your conversations. It's affecting my mental state as well personally. I kindly request you to end this conversation by removing the templates. Thanks Indiantalentnews123 (talk) 06:15, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * That's not how the AfD process works. Also, why are you replying to me with the same exact thing as on your talk page? Liliana UwU  (talk / contributions) 06:30, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * That's not how the AfD process works. Also, why are you replying to me with the same exact thing as on your talk page? Liliana UwU  (talk / contributions) 06:30, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Martin Harrington


This editor(s) created the article (diff) and claimed to be Martin Harrington (diff, diff). There are also a few IP addresses that have exclusively edited this page and related pages. These accounts repeatedly delete info beginning at least in 2012 and as recently as 2021. I've restored some of the content, so they will presumably attempt to delete it again. Thebiguglyalien ( talk ) 21:44, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Virtual mailbox


Someone named David Seidman is employed by Exela Technologies as a Content Marketing Specialist. added an Exela Technologies product to your entry called "Virtual mailbox". Chances last a finite time (talk) 13:25, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment this is a single edit SPA whose only edit was over a year ago. I suspect that your (appropriate) deletion of the spam link may be all that is needed.  Velella  Velella Talk 16:02, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Suresh P. Sethi


Could use some extra eyes. Thanks! . Randykitty (talk) 22:38, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Oakley Kwon

 * created Oakley Kown on 12 April 2023. Admitted to be working for the subject at Special:Diff/1149494659.
 * created simple:Oakley Kwon on 9 April 2023.
 * created Oakley Kwon on 13 April 2023.
 * created simple:Oakley Kwon on 9 April 2023.
 * created Oakley Kwon on 13 April 2023.

Undisclosed paid editor/SPAs all promoting Oakley Kwon. User:OakleyKwon denied connections although recent activities suggest otherwise. Fancy Refrigerator (talk) 02:00, 14 April 2023 (UTC)


 * There are enough shenanigans here to start an SPI, which I will do soon. SmartSE (talk) 16:55, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Already done so at Sockpuppet investigations/Modpixel, Modpixel and Orange flask are likely the same paid editor, but I am not certain about Hass mm. Fancy Refrigerator (talk) 16:59, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Aha thanks. I'll comment there. City Transformer (created by Hass mm) also has a distinct smell of UPE. SmartSE (talk) 17:01, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Aegean Oil

 * Pages


 * See also, ,
 * Users
 * Users



This is a continuation of Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 196. Not trying for a do-over, there was no comment or resolution previously it was just archived. Posted again after discussion with another editor.

I've been trying to clean up the promo and primary refs from Aegean Oil and related articles. I've been meeting fierce resistance from the above accounts, and I've realized its become a slow moving edit war (Mea culpa). I think the above SPA accounts and IPs are related and have a COI with the subject.

I’ve stopped editing the article, until this gets resolved; they won't even allow maintenance tags to remain in the article and have just promo/primary refbombed the article. Any suggestions on how to proceed would be helpful. I've been adding clear edit summaries so my edits are reasonably easy to understand.  // Timothy :: talk  03:51, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree, these accounts seem like classic promotional SPAs. Seems like there are related issues with the owner Dimitris Melissanidis's article too. If they don't respond to this post I'd just escalate to ANI. Hemiauchenia (talk) 04:19, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello their is no link between me and Dimitris Melissanidis or Aegean Oil. I just feel like I genuinely am posted factual information and I am backing it with sources. Timothy thinks he knows about the company however i am greek and i am trying to improve the page. Its not promotional, i am backing it with sources. He only does what he wants and doesn't allow other edits on this page now. He keeps reverting to what he only wants so i keep doing the same. When you create an account with wiki it says it created by people like you. Timothy isnt allowing that. I have provided factual information for Aegean oil. I dont see why it should be reverted to Timothys version which is extremely minimal and lacks information.
 * I hope you take into consideration what I have said
 * Many thanks 2A00:23C7:E53E:AD01:20EF:CED0:B6DF:A645 (talk) 06:47, 16 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Comments: The article completely fails NPOV due to the above editors promo edits. If this were a new article it would be G11 CSD  // Timothy :: talk  20:10, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * This has now been resolved at ANI with the article being semi-protected and rolled back, and the editors blocked. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:59, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Sylvia Bossu


My connection to the subject is clearly displayed on both my user page and the article's talk page. The article is neither laudatory nor promotional, it complies with WP:NPOV and is supported by fifteen or so WP:RS. Sylvia Bossu has entries in the Benezit Dictionary of Artists, Allgemeines Künstlerlexikon, and Le Delarge, articles about her in Libération and Le Monde, and is the subject of several monographs. A COI template has been inserted into the article following a misinterpretation of copyright rules on Wikimedia, but the editor has so far provided no proof of WP:NPOV violation. I'm now asking for a third-party review. Alcaios (talk) 22:45, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * My point is that there is no apparent reason to put a COI template (for how many months?) while my connection to the subject is clearly displayed and the article shows no evidence of a WP rule being violated. The article now has a 'temporary scar' above its body, and a 'permanent scar' in the talk page (casting a shadow of doubt among readers), just because thought I was trying to fool them on Wikimedia Commons... The COI guideline does not prohibit me from editing this article as long as I do not violate WP:BIO, WP:NPOV, and WP:PROMO. (to be clear: I have nothing against Jameslwoodward, this is just a human reaction to defend my honour - I'm a honest contributor who received the Editor of the Week award in the past for its contribution to other subjects - and that of my mother). Alcaios (talk) 06:58, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

As I understand WP policy, it is not appropriate for close relatives to write or even edit articles. There will always be a tendency for such writing to err on the positive side.

As for "just because Jameslwoodward thought I was trying to fool them on Wikimedia Commons", that's silly. I don't engage in retribution games -- life is too short, and there is too much work for Admins as it is. And, by the way, he was trying to fool us on Commons. Of a photograph there, he said, "I'm the author of this picture." His only connection with the image was that (I think) he is in it at age 2 or so, and that he scanned the paper photograph to upload it. Scanning a paper photo doesn't by any stretch of the imagination make you its author. .     Jim. .  (Jameslwoodward)   (talk to me) 12:39, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

By definition (as it is your mother), you have a clear COI. Your disclosures and efforts to maintain NPOV notwithstanding, you ought not edit the article directly, but rather limit your contributions to the talk page and making suggestions to changes to the article for others to evaluate. See WP:COIEDIT for some guidance. --SVTCobra 13:43, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

I did not scan it, I took a picture of the photograph with my mobile phone, that is why I wrote "I'm the author of the picture ... The photograph was taken in 1994" (while my user page clearly states that I was born in 1993). Again I did not try to fool anyone, I just misinterpreted copyright rules. The discussion is available. That said, I will not edit the article any longer and wait for a third-party review (my only fear is that nobody is going to review the article in the coming months). Alcaios (talk) 15:07, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Cassandra De Pecol


Editor Lf02ka clearly has some sort of vested interest in the article and refuses to respond to nor comply with WP:PAID instructions on their talk page. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 14:43, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Based on File:Cassandra De Pecol Holding Her Two Guinness Records She Obtained.jpg that Lf02ka uploaded, they clearly are, at the very least, acquainted with De Pecol to have been able to take such a photo. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 14:58, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * has been blocked by . It appears we're done here. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 18:49, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

David B. Dusenbery
Special:Contributions/Ddusenbery Dusenbery created both his own article and one for James Verne Dusenberry who he might be related to. He has also created pages built mainly/entirely off his own research papers (e.g. thermotaxis). Multiple pages have been tagged with coi already and the account has been inactive since 2015, but he is credited with 101 live edits and a good bit of cleanup may be necessary so I figured a report here would be the appropriate place to start on that. Especially important given his work centers articles on basic biological functions which I'm sure get a lot of eyes on them daily. QuietHere (talk &#124; contributions) 20:08, 20 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Also found at least one instance of apparent non-neutral language here where he dubs himself "father of Sensory ecology". QuietHere (talk &#124; contributions) 20:09, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Ibrahim Aminu Kurami‎‎


has twice added a COI tag to this article as he believes that the article creator, has a COI. The article does not appear to be promotional to me and the circumstances make COI seem unlikely: The article subject was a legislator in a state of 5.8 million people, he was elected by a large margin, he died two days before the article was created, and his death had been reported in many news outlets. In a discussion on Uncle Bash007's talk page, I asked Onel5969 for evidence of COI. Onel5969 did not respond in that discussion or by email. The only indication of COI is that Uncle Bash007 said, "I met him once and snapped his picture". Does meeting someone once and snapping a picture warrant an eternal COI tag on a BLP? Clayoquot (talk &#124; contribs) 00:42, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I actually did respond in that email. In fact, it was my response which elicited the comment from the editor, "Even though I met him once and snapped his picture as I am a photographer", which is the full quote. The picture does not appear to be of the type snapped by a fan or bystander, but by a professional photographer.  In what capacity were they working that event?  Were they paid for their work at that event? Onel 5969  TT me 00:51, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I did not receive an email from you. Perhaps you meant to say you responded in that discussion? Yes you did, but only before I asked for evidence of COI, not after. Clayoquot (talk &#124; contribs) 01:55, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I actually don't know what to say for you to believe. I clearly stated it that I do not have any personal connection with the subject, nor did I create the article to promote him, nor anyone paid me for the article. I am aware of Wikipedia policies and I personally have organised projects for writing articles on biographies more especially of people from my home town Katsina as I can get access to resources faster than when writing about someone far. I do most of my edits on Hausa Wikipedia and there I created hundreds of articles, I am also an administrator on Hausa Wikipedia. I will not talk any more on this topic.Uncle Bash007 (talk) 01:47, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
 * https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Project/Rapid/Biography_Editathon_in_Katsina Uncle Bash007 (talk) 01:47, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I cleaned up the article, I can see why COI was a concern; if this wasn't a COI, then it was hagiography.  // Timothy :: talk  01:23, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Paid COI editor disruptively editing Judith Orloff over the course of ten years
is the personal assistant of Judith Orloff, as Orloff's Facebook page helpfully states:"NOTE: TO SCHEDULE A PRIVATE SESSION WITH Dr. Orloff PLEASE CONTACT HER ASSISTANT RHONDA BRYANT." She has edited the page on multiple IPs in the block, and all edits from this block this year have done the same thing: remove the fact that the author of Second Sight is a self-proclaimed psychic. She has an obvious COI and has persisted for a decade and should be indef blocked, now that she has finally surfaced on an actual account. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please always ping! 07:10, 20 April 2023 (UTC)


 * @Psiĥedelisto, you should take a look at WP:OUTING. WP tends be rather strict on that. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:27, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * She edited the page with her real name and her boss's public Facebook profile advertises that she is her assistant. I don't think it falls afoul of the policy but if an admin feels differently they can feel free. Being a paid editor is not personal information when your boss has your name as her first point of contact. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please always ping! 07:53, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * It's worth mentioning that the user who created the article 15 years ago,, self-identified as Rhonda Bryant at User talk:Judith Orloff. The Judith Orloff account hasn't been used since 2008 and if it had been today, the user would have been blocked as an impersonating user name and asked to create an account with a different user name – apparently that's what she did, in 2013 when the RhondaBryant account was created. So there's clearly been COI editing involved right from the start, but it doesn't look like the user has been clearly informed about how to edit with a COI until you provided her with that information today. If she doesn't comply with WP:PAID, that would be a reason to block the account, but it's a bit early to say that at this point. If the IP disruption continues, semi-protection might be a good idea. --bonadea contributions talk 07:59, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Ocfec


An account called “Ocfec” created most of the articles relating to the OC Fair in 2005. I believe ofec is an ayronym for OC Fair & Event Center. I have never encountered any COI before and all these pages have multiple sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GameOfAwesome (talk • contribs) 21:57, April 20, 2023 (UTC)


 * If was editing now they could be blocked per WP:ROLE but they haven't edited in > 17 years (!) so it's unlikely that they will return. The only possible action other than cleaning up the articles would be to merge  into the OC Fair & Event Center article. SmartSE (talk) 17:08, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

One Little Goat Theatre Company


Promotional editing, largely with respect to the theater company and its founder, going back more than twelve years. The theater and Adam Seeling articles are especially bad and in need of major clean up. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:10, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

User:StudyUPTex
This new user @StudyUPTex may be a associated with University of Texas Press. They have edited a number of articles to include links to books published by University of Texas Press. Should their changes be reverted? ScienceFlyer (talk) 21:58, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Regardless of whether there is a COI or not, the edits were inappropriate and often promotional. I've removed most of them, leaving a few that were minor or need more careful review than I had time to address. --Hipal (talk) 15:23, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Radhey8 - COI & Self-Promotion
This editor has created their own article, self admitted COI at Teahouse and also has stated that he is creating the article to “…boost his career…” User_talk:Radhey8.

His user page and his first draft were all speedily deleted for violating not a web host and no citations, respectively. I’m not sure what to do about this as page reviewers let it through once then retracted it and placed a COI notice on the page despite COI stating you should not do such a task. No COI is being disclosed on the article or their talk page either but it has been brought up to them. I wanted to pass this to editors who are more familiar with this process. I have placed the tag on his page to notify him of this discussion. ThatFungi (talk) 04:32, 21 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Just for the record, I’ve left them a warning about how to manage a COI. Zippybonzo &#124; Talk (he&#124;him) 06:45, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
 * @Zippybonzo I had assumed you had done that under #8 on his talk page (same link I referenced above). He is still editing it though, which is why I brought it up here. ThatFungi (talk) 07:17, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi @ThatFungi I hope you're doing well. As a reviewer we look into all aspect before accepting the draft and moving it to mainspace. You did the right thing that you opened the discussion here. I also see @Zippybonzo guided the editor with all the relevant policies he could do. If he still editing he is promoting self which is not acceptable here. So I believe admins should take a call on this matter. Thanks C1K98V (💬 ✒️ 📂) 07:47, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
 * In response to my COI warning I left them, they have stated that the article subject asked them to make the page after seeing their freelance status on social media. Pinging @C1K98V. Zippybonzo &#124; Talk (he&#124;him) 08:06, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
 * @Zippybonzo, Its a clear case of WP:UPE and WP:COI. I assumed this was coming from his behaviour and reply. I would suggest to protect the recreation of article directly into mainspace and deletion of the draft. Thanks C1K98V (💬 ✒️ 📂) 09:46, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, they have insisted they're not being paid, so I think we're in AGF territory. They definitely have a COI and I've left a link to the "how to disclose" section of WP:COI on their talk page. They've also promised to work through the licensing issues of the photo they've uploaded. As long as they follow through, I think we can just wait and see what happens next. I'm going to ping them to make sure they're aware of this discussion, they may have missed the notice on their talk page (@Radhey8). 199.208.172.35 (talk) 17:51, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
 * @Zippybonzo based on your response above that he was writing for someone else (the subject) goes completely against what he already admitted as he is “looking to show his work” and to “boost his career”. So while AGF may be good as we should do that, his story has changed each time he rights out his replies. That’s what I’m looking at even despite the warnings, with the varying stories about why and who I’m inclined to agree with @C1K98V about salting and deleting due to the varying statements and him not confronting the COI issues after being warned and getting it cleared up before continuing to do any more work on the article. Again, maybe an admin needs to chime in on this and @RadHey8 really needs to participate in this discussion. ThatFungi (talk) 09:20, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Alberto Ibargüen


The information on this page is mostly not cited and not verified. It appears most of it has been written by an employee of his:


 * Marcfest (talk · contribs) This user has contributed to the article. (https://www.knightfoundation.org/press/releases/knight-foundation-names-marc-fest-vice-president)
 * In addition, Ibargüen and his foundation had donated hundreds of thousands of dollars over the years to wikimedia/wikipedia in grant money. But it is not disclosed anywhere. https://knightfoundation.org/articles/exploring-how-people-discover-knowledge-wikipedia-and-its-sister-projects/ https://knightfoundation.org/press/releases/wikimedia-foundation-explore-new-ways-search-and-d/ https://knightfoundation.org/grants/wikimedia-foundation-inc

LowElectrical9168 (talk) 18:51, 22 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Added another (stale) account to the connected contributors., you must notify any editor you identify in your report with the  code. I will do this for you. As these accounts are stale, I doubt at this point we will get any response from either one. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 14:43, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Irma Becerra Fernandez


We have a disclosed paid editor making promotional edits to the page. In a recent edit summary, this editor has said "Suggestions made on the talk page are clearly not being responded to by moderators, and we're dealing with inaccuracies being inserted into this article..." but I don't see anywhere where this editor has brought up an inaccuracy. They just seem to want to insert promotional content about the article subject. Marquardtika (talk) 15:01, 24 April 2023 (UTC)


 * The user 'Marquardtika' reverted the followed edit without explanation:
 * curprev 17:22, 17 April 2023‎ Nmunson  talk contribs‎  23,149 bytes −1,038‎  Removed paragraph with several inaccuracies related to Moody's reports, such as claim that acquiring of The Rixey led to change in bond rating (this was not included in Moody's report) and claim concerning debt grade change (outlook was actually revised to stable). undo Tags: Reverted Visual edit
 * According to Wikipedia guidelines, "policy on matters relating to living people allows very obvious errors to be fixed quickly, including by the subject."
 * Also, please define what is 'promotional' content. Additional edits were all sourced, newsworthy and relevant to the article subject. Nmunson (talk) 15:35, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * @Nmunson if you want edits to be made to a page it is not enough to just post on the talk page. You have to make people aware of it. This is done via requests for edits. See the following:
 * WP:Conflict of interest
 * WP:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide
 * WP:Request for edit
 * WP:Simple conflict of interest edit request
 * -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 23:28, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Saak Ovsepian


New user making 11 edits and then producing a perfectly formatted biography article: that's more than a whiff of UPE... Randykitty (talk) 17:24, 18 April 2023 (UTC)


 * That's some seriously loud quacking. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 17:42, 18 April 2023 (UTC)


 * I don't often deal with UPE. What's the usual way of handling cases like this one? --Randykitty (talk) 08:46, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your concern but I don't have any conflict of interest with the subject. I am a retired professor myself and I just know him through his publications, especially through Pushing the boundaries of neuroimaging with optoacoustic publication. I thought he may be notable for a Wikipedia article so just created it after becoming an autoconfirmed user. I hope it's ok with you. Mainmonty (talk) 03:44, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Flint River Academy


The IP is registered to the subject and clearly should not be editing the article directly. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 15:27, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Partially-blocked, from that page only. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 16:38, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Axios advice for COI-editors
Wikipedia's influence grows

We've seen worse. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:46, 28 April 2023 (UTC)


 * The "best" gems are and . The list at the end isn't awful, but that's only because the author did not actually write that part, rather "former and current editors". Might be one of the worst tech articles I've read in a while. Curbon7 (talk) 13:30, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I found the "Every edit must be cited by a secondary source — and no, your company website or personal records don't count. (See an extreme example here)." a bit funny, because I was in that discussion, and we pretty much agreed that a tweet/SPS would have been fine. This was of course in the old days (December), when her twitter had a blue checkmark. And a blue checkmark on twitter meant "it's me!" Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:16, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * "According to Michelson, the community is made up of 'very dedicated librarian types who take pride in curating sourced information.'" I've been called worse. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 21:34, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Ras Adiba Radzi


Editor has declared on their User Talk page that they are engaging in WP:AUTOBIO edits. – Skywatcher68 (talk) 18:55, 28 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Given the account name, we also have a WP:IMPERSONATE situation to deal with. Filed at WP:UAA. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 14:41, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies


User:Robinsonodora is a single-purpose account that only edits Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies, List of alumni of the Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies, and a great number of notable and lesser notable alumni and faculty of the institute. Sometimes, their additions go along with puffery, talking about an "acclaimed international trade economist" or a "noted Greek Turkologist", etc. Parallel to the list of alumni, the account also created a very long list of alumni on the institute's main article. After I deleted it because of redundancy, the user tried to reinstate the list without an edit summary. The Graduate Institute page has a history of single-purpose accounts editing the page and related pages. User:EpéeDeLaProvidence is indefinitely blocked, as well as its sock puppet User:F U Admim. If e.g. the institute hired a PR Agency to showcase its alumni and faculty, this should be disclosed. If User:Robinsonodora has an other kind of conflict of interest, it should be disclosed as well.CBJH (talk) 09:09, 22 April 2023 (UTC)


 * I have no conflict of interest. I'm trying to diversify Wikipedia, which is overly focused on schools in primarily English-speaking countries. Robinsonodora (talk) 01:19, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Beacon Cash
This is a report of the hijacking of an established article by a promotional IPv6 user. Draft:Beaconcash was submitted to AFC, and was declined on 23 April. An IP editor then copied the draft over the article on Beacon (a navigational device). Two human editors and a bot reverted the hijacking, and then the article was semi-protected. I expect that this may resume when the article comes off semi-protection, or there may be other efforts at spamming. I am not requesting any particular assistance so much as just making a report. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:30, 25 April 2023 (UTC)


 * I recommend blacklisting the beacon.cash and any related domains. This will make any hijacking less useful. It won’t full fix the issue but it will help. — A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 01:33, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Ecstatic Peace Library


Ashmusiclover222 was initially blocked for a spam user name as Ecstaticpeacelibrary222 (see this snapshot of the user talk page). After being unblocked with a new username, the user continued COI editing at Ecstatic Peace Library, even after a WP:3O contributor agreed that the editing was problematic (see this snapshot of the article talk page). The user has been gently warned about the COI policy at the article talk page, and more explicitly warned at their user talk page, and yet the user continues to edit the article, adding promotional and irrelevant information. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 12:01, 1 May 2023 (UTC)