Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 208

Maha Ali Kazmi


@Fatam50 keeps taking down maintenance tags from a BLP that looks overly PROMO. I've asked them on their user tp to stop removing the tags, but they're not listening. I haven't removed anything from the BLP yet or nominated it for deletion—just added tags. But the creator is getting defensive, which makes me think there might be some COI going on. I might just take it to AfD though, because I don't see it meeting WP:N. Even though it looks legit with all those RS citations, but its not quite up to snuff. — Saqib ( talk  I  contribs ) 10:39, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

User:Tanhasahu


It seems Tanhasahu may have a conflict of interest, but they denied it when asked to disclose. They registered in February 2024 and started with minor random edits before taking over Robert Soto, where was active before being blocked for undisclosed paid editing. Notably, Tanhasahu registered just a few hours after Lifeiswhatnow was blocked, so it wouldn't be surprising if they were the same person. Tanhasahu also moved Draft:Maniv Mobility a couple of weeks after it was declined and subsequently created Ross Andrew Paquette, a non-notable Canadian businessman. Given their creation of three articles about villages in Rajasthan and their username, it suggests they are from India. It's unusual for someone to write articles about subjects thousands of miles away, particularly when those subjects are not widely known, which indicates they may have been hired. Additionally, they created Julian Jewel Jeyaraj on es-wiki (now deleted), a page previously created by user Jhummu, a blocked undisclosed paid editor and a sock of user Vivek.k.Verma. I also found this SPI filed by user. GSS &#x202F;&#128172; 13:43, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

User:Gladiator-Citizen
The primary purpose of User:Gladiator-Citizen (who previously edited as User:Citizen-Gladiator) on Wikipedia appears to be to edit and/or create Wikipedia articles about himself, family members, close friends/acquaintances, and related corporate entities. The editor now appears to have a desire to remain anonymous, however their identity is pretty clear from their editing history and a past username. I will try to avoid outing them in the below and am happy for any information to be redacted if it's deemed too close to the line.

A sample of the user's edits are below, ranging from less harmful to exceptionally harmful:
 * Creating articles about family members with dubious notability and that rely extensively on self-published sources
 * Extensive use of self-published sources to embed positive views of the user and related parties as pioneering marriage and funeral officiants, most prominently at Celebrant (Australia) and Civil funeral celebrant. It is difficult to ascertain whether these are poorly-sourced but accurate claims, or are actually inaccurate as well.
 * Edits to Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC), which accuse the government agency of wrongful prosecution (and a court of wrongful conviction) of the user and an associated entity. This was in relation to a conviction and fine for price-fixing funeral charges.
 * Edits to Bill D'Arcy, a convicted child rapist. The editor believes that D'Arcy was the subject of a miscarriage of justice and that one of his child victims lied about being raped . Gladiator-Citizen has made repeated edits to D'Arcy's page pushing that view over a period of ten years, most recently in February 2024.
 * I was unfamiliar with the D'Arcy case before coming across Gladiator-Citizen's edits, but on review it appears that D'Arcy's convictions have been affirmed on multiple occasions and the views held by the editor are not widely shared or reported upon. It is wholly inappropriate for Wikipedia editors to second-guess court convictions based on their own research, especially where that involves unsourced accusations that child rape victims have perjured themselves.
 * The user's edits to Bill D'Arcy's page have repeatedly been reverted, but unfortunately have stayed up sometimes for several months. Multiple other users have tried to engage and explain why they are inappropriate (see here and Talk:Bill D'Arcy), but there appears to be zero understanding on the part of Gladiator-Citizen.

Unfortunately, when I tried to engage with the editor in a pretty neutral manner as to their COI, they responded with a rambling screed that did not address my basic query and showing very little understanding of Wikipedia's basic principles. The user's talkpage shows a history of similar interactions.

Based on this user's undisclosed COI editing and lack of understanding of fundamental policies I think an indef block is warranted. Their most recent edits (particularly that to the ACCC article) show that their editing quality is declining further and the risk of further damage is high given they typically edit in low-traffic subject areas. The content issues can be dealt with separately. ITBF (talk) 12:17, 5 May 2024 (UTC)


 * This notice should not be on this Noticeboard as the first condition of its presence should be after all respectful dialogue has been exhausted.
 * I attempted this dialogue and received no response just a disdainful description of my attempt as a “rambling reply”.
 * TO ITBF. You gave no indication that you had read the content or checked the sources of the entries in question.
 * Your personal attack on me, apart from being riddled with errors, vague and offensive generalisations, judgmental errors, unsubstantiated slurs, and offensive superior language, seems to me goes against all that Wikipedia recommends by way of respect and a culture of mutual assistance.
 * I was not going to dignify this personal attack with a reply but it is on a public noticeboard. On the principle that “qui tacet consentire” I feel I must make a reply.
 * Wikipedia sites for self and family
 * There are eight websites connected to my family that I know of. I did not create the entry on myself. It was created before I became an editor.
 * I have made corrections as asked by an editor who stated in a top panel that there were “issues”- “ could someone please correct”.
 * And almost on the same day as you corresponded with me, another editor, made substantial changes to the site on me. What a coincidence!! )
 * I did not create the four historical ones in my family covering the period - ca. 1830 to 1914. They have been there for years - long before I became an editor, There are two others which were created totally by other editors. (I might have done a small correction once.)
 * There was one I did create. Because of the personal connection I submitted it for approval via the “Articles for Creation” process and had to wait several weeks before it ultimately was approved. I created it with great care and impeccable sources and with no possible COI, as the person concerned had been retired for a number of years.
 * Wikipedia sites for “Friends and Acquaintances”
 * You accuse me also of creating Wikipedia sites for friends and acquaintances. I deny that totally.
 * I looked through some of them.
 * Roger Pryke – arguably the most influential Australian catholic of the Vatican II era. written long after he was dead.
 * Alan Lind - arguably the most popular bipartisan politician of his time - written long after he was dead.
 * Peter Wright --six times world squash champion in his division.
 * Jenny Hocking – author of the authoritative biographies of Lionel Murphy and Gough Whitlam. Noted for her long legal fight to release the Palace Letters at the time of the Dismissal.
 * Ian Heads OAM – author of at least 50 books on sport and sports people in Australia. Hall of Fame honoree at the Sydney Cricket Ground.
 * Michael Costigan - editor, writer, journalist, catholic activist, trustee of the David White estate.
 * Moira Rayner - original commissioner for equal opportunity, lawyer, commentator, author.
 * Alex Hutchinson - saxophonist and clarinetist in the renowned Graham Bell All Stars and many other noteworthy bands. Activist President of the Musicians Union.
 * Father Ted Kennedy (from stub) - parish priest of Redfern, prominent in the struggle for aboriginal rights. Written after he was dead.
 * Etc Etc (I have made 1,515 edits)
 * Desire to remain anonymous. Change of Wikipedia User name.
 * What is this about? Doesn’t Wikipedia prefer us to remain anonymous so that entries and corrections are judged on the merits of the content and the authenticity of the sources? Do you want me to come out and declare my name on a public Notice Board? What for?
 * Corporate entities
 * What corporate entities? I am a retired 86 year old man, living in a 2 bedroom apartment on the old age pension. What nonsense. I support organisations which do good for the community. Always have.
 * Self published sources
 * Over the years the publishers of my books have been Angus and Robertson, Zouch, Lothian, Dove, Spectrum and my two best selling books by Hachette Livre - all established respected independent publishers. Two of my books on different subjects are considered authoritative, well researched and praised by all reviewers.
 * You approached me in a neutral manner??
 * Your contact with me, like your entry above, from the beginning, has been hostile and intemperate. With such an attitude I’m not able to discuss the matter of my edits with you. You made judgments about my edits without reading the content or checking the references.
 * You are not suitable to be a Wikipedia policeman.
 * To the person in charge
 * I ask whoever is in charge of this Noticeboard to appoint a suitable person to discuss with me the edits and contributions which ITBF has so arrogantly deleted. I can honestly say there is no COI. I can further honestly say that I have never written an article or made an edit (1,515 edits) which I did not believe was a genuine contribution to knowledge, was accurate and authentically sourced. I am particularly proud of the contribution I have made to Wikipedia. Gladiator-Citizen (talk) 00:53, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I ask whoever is in charge of this Noticeboard to appoint a suitable person to discuss with me the edits and contributions which ITBF has so arrogantly deleted. I can honestly say there is no COI. I can further honestly say that I have never written an article or made an edit (1,515 edits) which I did not believe was a genuine contribution to knowledge, was accurate and authentically sourced. I am particularly proud of the contribution I have made to Wikipedia. Gladiator-Citizen (talk) 00:53, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Edit warring at Apostolic Christian Church
(and similar IPs)

Note that some IPs listed may belong to a singular user. There was also extensive reverting by other IPs on other sections of the article, but they are not listed here.

Hi, I was told to post this notice here, so here we are. I recently across a lengthy edit war at Apostolic Christian Church involving multiple IPs and a registered account recently, but didn’t know where to post it. Apparently there’s a COI of some kind or something? Hopefully this is the right page. I’m not entirely sure what to think of the situation. -Shift674-🌀contribs 01:57, 11 May 2024 (UTC)


 * I've just reverted the tag someone added as the talk page isn't proof of COI editing, especially when it's all very old. The edit war might just be a content dispute - who do you think is editing on behalf of the organisation? Secretlondon (talk) 05:20, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Personally, I wasn't sure if this was a COI or not. I was just told it was by another editor, and kinda went with it. Apologies for that. -Shift674-🌀contribs 00:28, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Someone keeps revising the information regarding our new Hymnal. Some people do not like the fact that the Denomination has decided to revise our hymn selection. I am seeing multiple IP addresses adding the line "and others due to the contemporary style music and biblical inaccuracy of some of the songs are not using it at all." This is a matter of personal opinion, and could easily be said of any hymnal. It does not add anything positive to the article. JoelSinn (talk) 16:48, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Secretlondon, I do not know if there is anyone that edits the page, The page is sort of a landing page for our Denomination, but the denomination has split into multiple groups over time, and so this page is sort of a landing/shared page for each individual group, as long as containing shared history. I have been editing it off and on since the early 00's as I have time, but just recently created a Wiki account. As far as I know, that is how most of the editing on the page is done, just various members updating it as new information, or updated information is found. JoelSinn (talk) 16:58, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

User: btphelps with regard to Béla H. Bánáthy


Initially, I sensed something was off when I noticed they were inserting self published primary source references into may articles, such as plaskett.family and adding tourism guide like contents. COI was suspected, because they were single handedly responsible for the insertion of the overwhelming majority of that self published personal website blog reference. They've created the article White Stag Leadership Development Program and when I searched articles containing sourcing to Whitestag.org and ran a Wikiblame check for insertion of whitestag.org (such as this example and this 2022 example out of many) I found that btphelps was responsible for most of them. Further research found strong evidence of long term advocacy editing and likely undisclosed paid editing. I've given them a chance to explain, but after a few days, no response. Per Wikipedia policy on outing, I can not name the evidence here, however per the protocol, private evidence has been emailed to Wikipedia functionaries. Graywalls (talk) 06:49, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
 * btphelps has overlapping interests. This is not a COI. This is simply throwing mud and seeing what sticks.--evrik (talk) 21:17, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
 * , there's sufficient evidence that contradicts that.
 * Functionary users: Please refer to March 11, 2024 email titled "Off-wiki evidence on user:btphelps for suspected UPE" addressed to
 * paid-en-wp. Graywalls (talk) 22:23, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
 * , Please see WP:PE and WP:COI for the meaning of conflict of interest on Wikipedia. You are quick to claim there's no COI, but have you done any checking on your own? While Wikipedia privacy policies doesn't allow the discussion of the specific evidence, anyone who does a bit of their own research on this should easily find the blatant COI between White Stag and the user in question. Graywalls (talk) 17:29, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Ok, so I can now say btphelps is a co-director of White Stag, per their self reveal as they have not had it redacted/oversighted. White stag was founded by Béla H. Bánáthy. Extensively writing about their own organization as well as those closely associated with it and inserting links to contents to the organization they direct as references to numerous related articles is a COI behavior. Graywalls (talk) 18:53, 23 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Graywalls, you act like you smell blood in the water and I can see you are enjoying circling in for the anticipated kill. Exactly which subject do you accuse me of having a COI? You initially accused me of a COI about the Big Sur related articles. I challenged you to prove that and you could not. Because it does not exist. Failing at that and apparently provoked by my refusal to succumb to your attacks, you dug deep and now accuse me of a COI having to do with Bela Banathy and tenuously his founding of the White Stag organization in 1958, which he left to others to run after about 1965. Exactly how did I financially benefit 50+ years later from writing about Bela Banathy? Or the White Stag program?


 * I first wrote that I was co-director of White Stag in 2008 on WP here. That position lasted for two years. The content on my WP user page that you cite lasted much longer than my volunteer position. I was never employed by that non-profit. It did not then and does not now have any employees. The idea that I might somehow benefit financially from it is laughable. When I was an active volunteer with that organization from 1968-1984 (long before WP existed) and 2008-2009, I paid out thousands of dollars in personal expenses to serve as a adult volunteer and paid hundreds of dollars yearly in fees for the opportunity to serve.


 * I wish I got paid for writing on WP. It might make up for having to deal with nincompoops like you whose primary work on WP consists of deleting and criticizing what others have contributed. Adversarial, demeaning, patronizing, confrontational editors like you are the reason editors like me with nearly 40,000 edits since 2004 quit.


 * BTW, when you proposed deleting the White Stag Leadership Development article, did you apply any of the WP concepts of courtesy and strive to notify anybody in the Scouting portal who might have had input over the validity of that article? I certainly didn't have a chance to respond, as I am no longer a regular contributor, due in part to fellow editors like yourself.


 * Maybe you didn't notice but when I began making contributions to the Bela Banathy article in 2008, he'd been dead for five years. Please, please, I beg you, explain your train of thought that I somehow financially benefitted from writing about Banathy. Who paid me? What proof do you have other than mere suspicion? The weight is in you to prove that UPE exists. This is a serious allegation and you should be prepared to provide solid evidence. Otherwise you are merely wasting everyone's time. I'm holding my breath in anticipation. — btphelps (talk to me) (what I've done) 01:02, 25 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Pinging, seeking your input. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Btphelps (talk • contribs) 21:25, March 24, 2024 (UTC)


 * I would say conflict of interest is a spectrum ranging from being paid to edit particular articles (either indirectly or because one's paying job includes keeping the public image polished) through articles about family or  friends whose reputations matter to you and onto belonging to a large organization (e.g., Catholic Church or Boy Scouts of America) and on to former connection to just general interest. I don't think Wikipedia frowns on most American citizens editing articles on their state (though if you are the press secretary of the governor, things are getting too close) or on the USA itself or most Catholics editing articles about the Catholic church or alumni editing articles on their university  (unless they are adding themselves as prominent alumni).  Also Wikipedia CoI has become stricter over time.  In other words the boundary shifted.  The Béla H. Bánáthy article was created in 2004 (he died in 2003) and not by @Btphelps.  He first edited that article in 2008 and seems to have removed some serious POV issues from the article.  I also checked his link to his user page in 2008 and he is up front about his connection to White Stag Leadership. I also checked the White Stag Leadership 990 form (2014 [the earliest easily available] and the most recent) and they have no paid employees (and not a huge budget).  My judgment is he is not a Paid Editor though there was an admitted connection  with White Stag and possible significant CoI at the time, but, the fact he announced the connection makes the fault more minor. My own view without knowing what was in the White Stag Leadership article is that it likely could have been merged into Leadership training (Boy Scouts of America) and that article improved as regards references to third party sources.  That  Btphelps admires Béla H. Bánáthy is obvious but then most major editors of particular wikipedia articles either admire (or abhor) their subject.  There seems to be no evidence (and no money in White Stag Leadership's budget) that he was a paid editor for either article. Erp (talk) 03:49, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
 * , there is evidence some evidence that has already been emailed where sharing those details are allowed. WP:OUTING prevents me from discussing those evidence further. Graywalls (talk) 08:57, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
 * , I nominated for deletion and I provided you with a courtesy notice. The article was written entirely based on your organization and it was very much advertorial. I did check for presence of significant coverage in independent reliable sources before I nominated it for deletion. Graywalls (talk) 06:23, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
 * , to respond to: This is a serious allegation and you should be prepared to provide solid evidence. since you have not directly introduced yourself by your identity outside of Wikipedia, I have to be careful with what can be posted here since posting anything that connects user name to real life identity is strictly prohibited, unless you explicitly authorize. Even then, I'd feel more comfortable if you introduced yourself first (strictly optional though) before I post it. Graywalls (talk) 13:52, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

I am going to be AFK until next week. Just an FYI, I just posted this: Administrators%27 noticeboard/Edit warring --evrik (talk) 03:55, 25 March 2024 (UTC)


 * For ease of finding it, now Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring -- Pemilligan (talk) 13:45, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

(arbitrary break)
This is also something to look at: Talk:Leadership_training_(Boy_Scouts_of_America). Btphelps disclosed they're the author of that contents on pinetreeweb. Graywalls (talk) 15:53, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Please also see discussion of GA reassessment at Talk:Béla_H._Bánáthy/GA2 Graywalls (talk) 15:58, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

WP:COI's def is so broad and vague that it can be easily capitalized on by someone with an axe to grind. Saying there is a COI on someone who has been dead since 2003 is certainly outside the intent of wp:coi. North8000 (talk) 16:00, 25 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Please drop your allegation of "axe to grind". This is not what this is about. I noticed something I believed was a COI, and more probing found more suspected COI. That's all there is to it. Even though the founder is dead, the company he founded is still around and it isn't unusual for companies to want to maintain page on its founders. Graywalls (talk) 16:11, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
 * It may be interesting to editors here to read some of the comments recently made by arbitrators at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conflict of interest management/Proposed decision. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 08:29, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

, We haven't heard you comment in a while Do you give permission for editors to publicly share evidence found off-wiki in this discussion even though it may reveal your identity and/or your affiliation with various organizations? Without your explicit consent, those details can't be shared here. Graywalls (talk) 09:45, 29 March 2024 (UTC)


 * User:Graywalls To quote a retired editor who I much respected:


 * "I loathe busybodies with too much time on their hands, who spend more time being critical of the postings of others than they do posting their own knowledge. I am the natural enemy of the protocol deletionist; I hate those who intentionally won't seek a creative way to save something potentially useful. If you've been here long enough, you will be involved in deletion discussions. I have had to nominate several, but it is nothing to cheer about; no matter how trivial it may seem to you, it mattered enough to some volunteer editor. Those who take joy in deleting the work of others are psychopaths.


 * and those who delete factual or useful contributions to an article, that are not vandalism, because it does not fit their own narrow view of what the article should be. If someone puts something on there that might not belong where it is, find a home for it, don't delete it outright. :)" — btphelps (talk to me) (what I've done) 07:01, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't know what you mean. Do you mean, yes, or no with regard to permission to post the evidence? Graywalls (talk) 22:26, 30 April 2024 (UTC)


 * I've looked at the nonpublic evidence, and I would say that your connection to White Stag,, creates a plausible financial conflict of interest. It's borderline because you've said it's an unpaid position at a nonprofit, and we've no reason to doubt you – but consensus here in the past has been that such positions can involve all sorts of non-compensatory or in-kind benefits that muddy the waters enough that you should tread carefully. It's not an undisclosed FCOI, though, because you noted it on your talk page. So the only action I'm going to take as a functionary is to revoke your autopatrolled permission, which I would have done anyway because of the recent AfDs and will not affect your editing in anyway. I do think you should consider avoiding topics you are this closely related to in future, or at least asking other editors to make changes on your behalf, as recommended in WP:COI. Courtesy ping to let you know that we received your email to paid-en-wp@wikimedia.org. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 09:41, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Keio University


This new editor is repeatedly adding a lot of advertorial material (sample: Keio members often believe that any person related to the Keio organisation (e.g. professors, students, alumni and their family members) as part of their inner circle, and should offer their best in assisting one another like brothers or sisters.) to this article, suggesting a CoI, and isn't willing to engage on their talk page despite warnings. I'm not prepared to edit war over this, especially now they've discovered the undo button, so some extra eyes would be useful instead. The latest addition is still up at the time of writing. 81.187.192.168 (talk) 18:30, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

The Independent Florida Alligator


This user is a manager at The Independent Florida Alligator and they need help that I can't provide. I'd appreciate it if someone here could help them. Below is what they put on their talk page.

81.187.192.168 (talk) 19:53, 15 May 2024 (UTC)


 * I added the template on the article talk page. The user's talk page correspondence suggests this situation is under control, for now. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 04:40, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Removal of UPE template
In full transparency, I wanted to ask for a second opinion in a UPE template that I removed from Propel (company). I am the author and major contributor of the article, and I have a professional connection disclosed on the article's talk page and my user page. Today an IP editor added a UPE template, which I didn't think was appropriate. In general I try to avoid touching the article at all, but I've reverted the UPE tag. I'm mentioning it here in full transparency in case people agree with the UPE tag, or if they believe there are issues of notability that need to be addressed. Mokadoshi (talk) 14:45, 16 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Also if this were to happen again, some suggestions would be helpful on whether I should do the same as I've done here today, or whether I should refrain from these types of changes on the article. Appreciate any feedback, Mokadoshi (talk) 16:48, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
 * You should not be editing the page directly at all, you should request edits with the template edit COI on the talk page. Theroadislong (talk) 17:11, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
 * You’re right thank you. I was confused whether changes to tag templates would need an edit request but it was dumb of me. Mokadoshi (talk) 17:17, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Le Labo


Uncommunicative new user changing Le Labo to add advertising/marketing language. Could use more eyes. 81.187.192.168 (talk) 17:25, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

ImagineNATIVE Film and Media Arts Festival


Editor continually copies large swaths of promotional information regarding the subject, suggesting they have an undeclared vested interest in said subject. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 18:03, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Francesca Romana D'Antuono
(and the list goes on, see user's further edit history: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Heideneii)

User Heideneii have been creating and heavily editing pages on various EU "Volt" related entities (individual member states parties) and persons (politicians).

I have contacted them on their talk page regarding this and they deny any COI. However, based on their edits, where they are a creator or heavy editor of those Volt related party and politician pages, I still suspect COI.

In their latest response they agreed they "are interested in the movement".

I welcome checks and opinions of other users. dusoft (talk) 09:13, 6 May 2024 (UTC)


 * "they" ist just me, one person. As I Said before, I'm interested in the movement and follow them actively. But I'm not part of the movement or connected in any form to it. English wikipedia is not my main focus at wikipedia either. However, I have noticed that volt as an international movement has hardly been covered there so far, which is why I have started to add articles there.
 * According to my understanding of the rules on COI, there is no such conflict.
 * A few days ago, Dusoft left a text on the topic of COI on my discussion page and asked me to explain one for myself, even though, as I understand it, there is no such thing and adding references to COI to the articles I contributed to without even attempting to contact me in advance.. As I said, I am in no way associated with the movement or any of the national parties, other than I actively follow them on Twitter because I find the idea of ​​a pan-European idea interesting.
 * I have also carefully documented all of my edits with sources so that they can be verified by everyone.
 * So I was a bit surprised by the accusation, but I'm happy to be corrected if I misunderstand the rules of COI and cordially invite everyone to check my edits for errors. Heideneii (talk) 10:53, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
 * You have created or heavily edited all Volt [countryname] pages, not just the ones mentioned above. Moreover, you have created multitude of pages of individual politicians from these parties, we are talking tens of these pages. Somehow your arguments of just being "interested in the movement" don't hold here. dusoft (talk) 20:09, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * as i said before, my main focus when editing wikipedia is not on the english wiki, but mainly on completing and translating missing articles from the english wiki. You are welcome to believe what you want, but that doesn't change the fact that I am in no way connected to the movement beyond an interest. i don't know about you, but when i'm interested in a topic i read and work a lot on it. for me it makes sense to add it to wikipedia if i know enough about a subject to be confident about it and already have the necessary sources from my research.
 * But yes, it is true that many edits in the English wiki on volt go back to me, unfortunately, that is welcome to change, because wiki lives from counterchecks that nobody writes something wrong, even if I have always proven everything I have written with sources. Heideneii (talk) 08:50, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
 * This is a pretty weak WP:COI accusation, would advise you to just clean up any WP:PROMO you see on the articles and if things get any worse, come back. Allan Nonymous (talk) 17:37, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
 * what about all the articles that he flagged with the indication that there might be a coi, without substantiating this in any way? It would be nice if someone could check their content for correctness and not leave it like this forever. Heideneii (talk) 17:38, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree with this take. This is quite weak. CrazyPredictor (talk) 19:23, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

COI with WP:COI
As a general question; do editors with a COI (paid or unpaid) have a COI with the COI guideline?

For paid editors, I would suggest that they do - they have strong reason to support weakening the restrictions on the editing they can do. For editors with an unpaid COI, I would suggest it is a little more complicated and would depend on the nature of their COI and how much of their editing relates to it. BilledMammal (talk) 20:31, 14 May 2024 (UTC)


 * The majority of active, experienced editors are not paid editors, so it is unlikely that paid editors would be able to canvas and coordinate a consensus to change in policy in a way that harms the community. Mokadoshi (talk) 03:18, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * That's true, but they may be able to influence a discussion in their favor; they might change a consensus to make it stricter into a no consensus result, or a no consensus result to make it looser into a consensus to do so.
 * I think in general it is better that we treat them as if they do - I see no benefit coming from them !voting in such discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 04:46, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * First, I would point out that the COI guideline applies to articles (note language like affected articles, new articles, no one on Wikipedia controls articles, etc.), and WP:COI is not an article.Second, if one is considering both paid and unpaid COIs, numerous editors have a WP:POTENTIALCOI. Would they therefore have a COI with WP:COI, since the guideline advises about behavior around one's potential COIs as well, which would thus affect all editors with potential COIs? Anyone who's worked for any organization notable enough for there to be an article about it (summer job at KFC, cafeteria job at your university, intern staffer at your regional or national legislature, shelf stocker at Walmart, desk job at a big company, etc.); anyone who has ever interacted with or been a person notable enough to be documented in an article, according to some editors anyone who has ever been a lay member of an organization notable enough to have an article (though I disagree with that last interpretation of COI). (For full transparency, my talk page includes a disclosure of a COI with an article to which I previously made contributions, so I suppose I would be among the editors caught up in BilledMammal's suggested interpretation. In retrospect it was immoderate of me to make those contributions, as the article's topic pertains to a work created by an organization part of an umbrella organization that included an organization I was once a student employee of years ago. At the time of my contributions, I thought the termination of my employment terminated my potential COI, as I was no longer financially involved with the organization or umbrella organization (and had never been financially involved with the article topic's organization).) Hydrangeans (she/her &#124; talk &#124; edits) 05:15, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The guideline talks about both editing generally and editing to articles - and the wording on paid COI is very clear that it applies to editing generally, saying The Wikimedia Foundation requires that all paid editing be disclosed, emphasis mine.
 * Regarding the rest of your comment, I think you overlooked where I said For editors with an unpaid COI, I would suggest it is a little more complicated and would depend on the nature of their COI and how much of their editing relates to it. In other words, this wouldn't apply to editors with a potential conflict of interest, and generally would only apply to non-paid editors whose primary purpose here is to make edits related to their conflict of interest.
 * I think the best solution here is to say that it does applied to editors with a paid conflict of interest, and that it generally doesn't apply to those with an unpaid conflict of interest but may on a case-by-case basis. BilledMammal (talk) 05:27, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I probably say unambiguously yes in all circumstances. TarnishedPathtalk 11:56, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Romero Britto


Unsure if I'm doing this report right since I'm not familiar with the behind the scenes of Wikipedia, but I believe I've found a conflict of interest where the artist Romero Britto is editing his own Wikipedia page. This user has only ever edited Britto's page, generally to create a more positive view of him (removing references to being friendly with a right wing politician and explaining in the edit page that Britto is politically neutral, adding an article where Britto defends himself against allegations of being abusive to restaurant staff). When you click on the Geolocate links on the userpage, the IP address is based in Miami, where Britto lives, and it lists the ISP/Organization as "Britto". Maybe there's an ISP called Britto that I've never heard of, but I feel like this is enough to raise a few eyebrows. Soflata (talk) 01:23, 8 May 2024 (UTC)


 * At best, this is a WP:SPA give e'm a good ol' last WP:COI warning, and if that doesn't work, haul them off to WP:ANI. Allan Nonymous (talk) 17:39, 9 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Providing an update on this: on May 15 2024, the user completely deleted the entire Politics section of the Britto article again. The change was reverted by Cyclonial. Soflata (talk) 15:33, 17 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Unsure exactly how this works and whether I need to keep providing updates on the issue, but a new IP address that has never edited before (170.250.93.181) has popped up and deleted chunks of the article, claiming "inaccurate information" and "fake news" as the reasons for the editing. Once again, the edits were reverted, this time by Smallangryplanet. Soflata (talk) 15:02, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Sam and Nia


User:Matthew T Rader appears to have a COI in editing article Sam and Nia -- both because of a personal connection (the user disclosed on his personal blog that he is Sam Rader's brother) and a professional connection (he is advertised as a professional photographer on his blog, on Instagram, and even on ). The user created the article Sam and Nia, has made the vast majority of contributions to the article (per Xtools, the user has contributed 83.5% of all characters and 63.5% of all edits), and is still active editing the article now -- especially now that a Netflix documentary about Sam and Nia was recently released. 2620:1F7:8B5:284B:0:0:32:386 (talk) 17:09, 22 May 2024 (UTC)


 * I have only updated factual information about them that is cited in the media, I have not added any personal bias to the article. There's no rule against that at all. Matthew (talk) 17:10, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I just read the COI rules, I see that it says avoid doing that. Again all the information I've added has only been factual and referenced in official sources. You can review it for yourself and change any language that appears biased. I also edit other articles, I was an Wikipedia editor years before that article about them was published. Matthew (talk) 17:14, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Update Since the user has confirmed COI above, I've gone ahead and added the appropriate tags to both the article and the article's talk. Would still recommend an Admin determine if further actions (WP:PBAN, WP:BLOCK, etc.) are warranted. 2620:1F7:8B5:284B:0:0:32:386 (talk) 18:24, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Bluebird K7


User:Nigel PG Dale is an author who is currently working with Bill Smith of the Bluebird Project on a book regarding his side of the restoration story. User:Nigel PG Dale is attempting to influence the Bluebird K7 Wikipedia page to reflect untruths and is in a conflict of interest situation.

80.3.122.252 (talk) 16:49, 19 May 2024 (UTC)


 * As noted at the top of this page, you are required to notify someone that you are raising a report about them here; and to attempt to resolve issues with them before doing so. Where did you do these things? Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:42, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

User:Monhiroe


A long term editor with an obvious undisclosed COI and possible UPE on multiple articles they have created and improved over time. Monhiroe initially uploaded and, which were deleted for copyright violation. They then proceeded to upload, which was verified through VRT. But when asked if they were the photographer, they proceeded to remove the entire thread from their talk page without replying.
 * c:File:Sathish2024.jpg is credited to Prachun Prashanth Sridhar. Monhiroe is obviously not Prachun Prashanth Sridhar as the quality of photographs does not look like a student's work, nor have they uploaded any other high quality images they have shot. The only way Monhiroe could have got the HD image is from the subject herself, which I believe was done without the knowledge of the photographer. None of the images they have uploaded, apart from c:File:Amudhavana.jpg seem to be owned by them, but they have been verified through VRT. This begs the question of possible UPE on Nivedhithaa Sathish and Srikanth Deva as they have a copy of the raw image.
 * It is very obvious now that they have a connection with the Tamil/Malayalam film industry, which needs to be disclosed. If not, we'll never know which articles they have a COI with or if they have been paid to create articles. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 12:04, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Pinging VRT members/commons admin - Satdeep Gill and Krd. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 12:11, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * HI, Please note i own the copyright of the images. Srikanth Deva image was took by my self on an event. Im not here to do paid work. Im here spending time to improve tamil film and tamil industry articles. Monhiroe (talk) 12:11, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Im a Photographer, i does it as parttime . @Jeraxmoira mentioning that "I believe was done without the knowledge of the photographer." I have many cinema artist,Politions photoshoots i done and im not Prachun Prashanth Sridhar . im not want to out my self here. Monhiroe (talk) 12:27, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * If you are not Prachun Prashanth Sridhar, could you please explain how and where you got the raw of File:Sathish2024.jpg and why you mentioned that you have taken the photograph here? Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 12:42, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * She came to the studio .During the the time i shot the image. Monhiroe (talk) 12:46, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * You are just blatantly lying at this point. The shoot is credited to Prachun Prashanth Sridhar and you have already acknowledged that you are not him.
 * Prashanth Sridhar and Nivedhithaa Sathish have both posted the shoot's images on their Instagram profiles on April 1, but you have been trying to add an image from March 27. The metadata on the image says August 3, 2022, which means you could have uploaded the image all this while, but instead, you used the image from her Instagram profile, which was deleted for copyright violation. And on your user page, there's not a single mention of you being a photographer, but you have added eight other boxes.
 * Here is an instance of you not following NPOV because of your COI - but the source does not say anything related to this. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 13:56, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I M not COI . if you want to remove the image. Remove i dont need it. I dont get any use of update the image. Monhiroe (talk) 14:18, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't think you understand the point. You need to disclose your COI on your userpage or on the relevant article's talk page and it's also advised that you only make edit requests on articles where you have a COI. Regarding the image, if you haven't received permission from the photographer or the subject, you can't grant permission for free use, so it will be deleted. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 14:25, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I see you've edited your response. The COI is very clear, so I don't think denying it in this reply cancels the COI. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 14:30, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * noted Monhiroe (talk) 16:19, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Blatant COI and deception It is much obvious at this point. And their responses aren't helpful either. I think they do understand the implications of COI and its violations (as it's clear they've been deceptive), but opting to brush this off without much participation in the discussion as they tend to provide inconsistent explanations (happens only if one's not being truthful). Some friendly advice:@Monhiroe, your best course would be to come clean, there's no point in deception or avoiding the accusations. Just some policies the community have set, you simply just have to comply. Tell us your connections and clear everything. Telling the truth won't harm anyone. You will not get banned or something but declaring your COI and UPE connections will only save you from it. Regards. X (talk) 12:27, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Justin Stebbing


Hi folks, I'd welcome input/help from editors more experienced with handling COIs here, I don't really have time for this (I just stumbled upon the problematic page when cleaning up a category of scientists!). In one sense, the COI is pretty open, given the user name matches the name of the subject, but still, even after a warning there's no attempt to follow COI policies.

As outlined on the article talk page, the issues with this page might be broader than just this one user's COI, but certainly a lot of edits over the past couple of years create the appearance of self-promotion and public relations / whitewashing – a long pattern of edits emphasising (sometimes hyping) the subject's scientific impact and de-emphasizing scandal. (The other users listed on the article talk page were active 2 years ago, and not since, so I've not brought them into this discussion.)

After I used Uw-coi on the user's talk page yesterday, the user made further edits implying an unwillingness to engage with this: Joe D (t) 10:10, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * 1)  further whitewashing, with a dishonest edit summary disguising it as a minor edit
 * 2)  deleting the issues that I had outlined on the talk page


 * now blocked for WP:REALNAME. If in fact he is the subject, he will need to provide proof of identity. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 14:22, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I've also added all the other WP:SPA accounts identified on the talk page. I will notify them of this discussion, although it may be moot as most of them appear to be stale. However, if this kind of suspicious activity occurs again, it could form the basis of a WP:SPI report. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 14:42, 19 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Update: provided proof of identity and is now unblocked. However, he resumed editing the article substantially without any attempt to discuss on the article talk page. As a result, the article is under extended protection. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 07:15, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Éric Benhamou


Extra eyes on this article would be useful, please. 46.69.215.187 (talk) 19:37, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Marc Gafni


It seems pretty clear to me from this editor's behavior and the infomation on their user page that they are somehow affiliated with the subject or the subject's organization. They seem to be a single purpose editor who edited a few other articles for a brief period after creating their account, but now only edit the one article. Skyerise (talk) 00:01, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Also note that the above editor is adding self-published (CreateSpace) books to the subject's publications. Skyerise (talk) 00:13, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The user is indef banned as a sock. X (talk) 13:25, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Axel Downard-Wilke


Axel Downard-Wilke is Schwede66 (userpage disclosure), a prominent New Zealander Wikipedian, administrator and member of Wikimedia Aotorea New Zealand's executive committee. Marshelec also sits on this committee (userpage disclosure). I couldn't find explicit onwiki disclosure of which member he is, so to be on the safe side I will not make a claim either way for now. Marshelec has a conflict of interest regarding Downard-Wilke/Schwede66 because of this relationship.

Marshelec made major contributions to Downard-Wilke's article without explicitly disclosing this conflict of interest. This included nominating the article for a prominent spot on the Main Page as DYK's image hook. My view is this is bright-line misconduct.

Wainuiomartian, the other major contributor, has had some interactions with Schwede66  and it would probably be best for them to clarify their relationship.

To be clear, Downard-Wilke/Schwede66 himself has not had anything to do with the article and does not seem to have done anything wrong here. I have only notified him for completeness' sake. – Teratix ₵ 08:00, 24 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Blatant COIN violation as I see it, especially given the fact that Downard-Wilke has dubious (at best) notability. wound theology  ◈  08:19, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * When I approved the hook, there were no COI concerns raised. I remember noticing a COI disclosure on the talk page, but now I realize it was from the subject themselves (Mr. Wilke), who had nothing to do with either the DYK or the article. The DYK has now been pulled from the Mainpage thanks to the prompt action taken by an admin. IMO, relatively experienced editors such as the OP (Wainuiomartian) and major contributor Marshelec should have known better and be transparent and followed what the policies dictate (assuming they have COI). I'm someone who doesn't get too serious about breaching of a bunch of Wiki policies, but still, simple COI declarations and probable AFC submission could have provided smoother sailing. Anyway we're past that and the way I see it is if they have COI they must declare or clear their positions, and uninvolved editors may scrutinize the writing to omit possible promo materials.Re notability, if in doubt it can be taken back to AFD. X (talk) 13:29, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

I accept that I have a Conflict of Interest with regards to Axel Downard-Wilke, and that I should not have edited the article or nominated it for DKY. I regret this lapse of judgement, and I accept the criticism that I "should have known better". I have now belately added a COI declaration to my user page, and a connected contributor template to the talk page of the article. I regret and apologise for the disruption and extra work that this has caused for multiple editors.Marshelec (talk) 20:56, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification on my talk page,.

Allow me to state that Wainuiomartian does not have a COI. My administrative work happens at WP:ERRORS, WP:DYK, and WP:ITN. Beyond that, I almost exclusively edit New Zealand content, where I create content, curate new content, help out other editors, and keep an eye on a watchlist that is just shy of 10,000 items. With some 235,000 edits, it’s virtually impossible that I won’t have interacted with any New Zealand editor who is active in one of my topic areas of interest. that is part of my Wiki work and it is a very far off from getting Wainuiomartian and myself into a situation that resembles a COI.

The other week, Wainuiomartian started making additions to many of the YYYY New Zealand census articles, which are all on my watchlist. I made some stylistic changes to her edits and, they came to my talk page and asked some questions, presumably because they had seen that I had also edited the census articles. That was on 11 May 2024, long after she last edited my bio. Hence no COI here either; merely from a timing perspective. You may note that. Wainuiomartian and I have never met or spoken with one another apart from these two interactions.

One article that is not on my watchlist is my bio. My thinking here is that I should not watch something when I cannot and should not take any actions; if there are issues, I trust that the Wiki community will sort it out. Hence, it took quite a while before I noticed that Marshelec is editing my bio when clearly he shouldn’t. I stated to him that this concerned me and this was a month after the article had been nominated at DYK. I shall state that he hasn’t edited the article since.

The side issue of notability was raised. There are a couple of sources that would count towards establishing notability that are missing from the bio:


 * I’m in this book on four pages; happy to provide transcripts of the relevant passages.
 * I was on the national management committee of the IPENZ (now Engineering NZ) Transportation Group from 2003 to 2006, holding the role of treasurer.
 * The 3M Award is the most prestigious award that the Transportation Group - a technical interest group of Engineering New Zealand - has handed out since 1997. I was one of the contenders in 2006 but did not win.


 * This is a very cool piece of work, mostly about the macron war. The article is great but the podcast, linked from within the article, is even better.

If anyone is keen to work those in, let me know and I’ll type up the relevant book passages. And there's heaps more; I have another good 50 sources that can be cited. Also, I’d appreciate if someone could cast their eye over the content that Marshelec has added to check that’s it complies with NPOV. If that includes any offline sources or stuff that comes from ProQuest, I can make that available. I hope this helps.  Schwede 66  20:59, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

I was asked to write the article and agreed because the subject seemed notable with regards to his invention for cyclists at wide intersections and for instigating the consistent use of macrons on Wikipedia pages. I do not believe I have a conflict of interest. I have never met Axel and was not even sure of his username when I created the article. I have since contacted him directly once with a question of style about New Zealand censuses which I am working my way through. Wainuiomartian (talk) 22:09, 24 May 2024 (UTC)


 * You were to write the article?  wound theology  ◈  03:05, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The Douglass book clearly would not contribute toward notability as it is not independent -- it's literally the IPENZ Transportation Group writing a book about the IPENZ Transportation Group. JoelleJay (talk) 05:19, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * JoelleJay, yes, I had the same opinion. By the way, outside this source, in general I feel the subject meets borderline GNG. But we should sort out COI here. Notability can be discussed on the talk page of the article or at AFD if someone takes it back there. A side note: I remember the DYK having a really unusual and frivolous source in its first hook. It was a PowerPoint presentation authored by Mr. Wilke and uploaded on an online repository by themselves on April 6. Then the article was put on DYK in less than a day by Marshelec. All this is to say that there were abundant of hints/evidence of COI, but none seemed to have picked it up (including me as the DYK approver but noticed a COI disclosure on talk page so didn't pay much heed). X (talk) 06:37, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @Wainuiomartian, Wait, you were asked to write the article? And you agreed? That phrase makes it sound like you created the page on the behest of someone or someone's proposal? Please clarify this. X (talk) 06:17, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @Schwede66: do you happen to know anything about this? wound theology  ◈  08:01, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Who asked you? Secretlondon (talk) 12:42, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Why the concern about someone suggesting an article be written, and why is their identity important? If someone thinks an article would be worthwhile Wikipedia having, but has a conflict of interest, then isn't it the right thing to do to suggest to someone else without a conflict of interest to write it? I see no evidence that Wainuiomartian has a conflict of interest and we should assume them capable of deciding independently whether a Wikipedia article is justified, so I consider it irrelevant that their original inspiration was a suggestion or request from someone else, regardless of who that was. JMCHutchinson (talk) 14:33, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * isn't it the right thing to do to suggest to someone else without a conflict of interest to write it? In this case, the writer should be transparent and disclose they have not written the article fully of their own volition but have been prompted by someone with a conflict of interest. – Teratix ₵ 16:28, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @Jmchutchinson Why the concern about someone suggesting an article be written Because their wording "asked” “agreed” makes it sound like (as I previously mentioned) they created the page on the behest of someone or someone's proposal. I think a clarification is due here. X (talk) 16:43, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I tried to find some guidance about this. Conflict_of_interest does say that in case of an edit request from someone with a COI, the edit summary should acknowledge the edit request. So, according to that text, you are both justified to ask if the requestor had a COI. But I am not sure that it is reasonable to expect everyone to know that rule: I didn't! It seems not such a fundamental transgression if the editor themself has written the text and has no COI. JMCHutchinson (talk) 17:45, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Please note that the New Zealand Wiki community has its monthly online meeting tomorrow. Anyone can join in and we usually have a few Australians turn up. I'll be talking about COI editing so that we as a community learn something from it, achieving broader understanding of how to manage this. Anyone watching this page is most welcome to join in: Meetup/Aotearoa New Zealand Online/49. I'll ask the organiser to be on the programme in second slot so that there's an approximate time available for those who are only interested in this topic; tune in from 12:15 h NZT, which is UTC+12:00. Time zone conversion link for your convenience.  Schwede 66  03:51, 25 May 2024 (UTC)


 * I don't think you should be leading this as you are involved as the subject. Secretlondon (talk) 12:43, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * That would seem to be a matter for the meetup organisers, not COIN. – Teratix ₵ 15:25, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * It's a massive ethical issue, even if not strictly COI. Secretlondon (talk) 15:48, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * With due respect, I disagree. I am one of the most experienced editors in New Zealand. I don’t have a conflict of interest myself, but I’m involved in a CoI case. Hence, I fail to see why I would not pass on some of my knowledge. I’ve presented Wiki topics on several occasions before. This is topical, with a number of editors interested. I’ve issued a public invitation here for editors who have this noticeboard on their watchlist as they are presumably interested in the topic. You yourself are most welcome to attend,, and I would welcome any feedback afterwards, from you or anyone else. As always, I will make the slide deck available afterwards for others to use and modify as they see fit.  Schwede  66  19:03, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Following up:
 * I appreciate it can be stressful to have your work on Wikipedia come under scrutiny and I'm glad you've promptly acknowledged the situation is problematic and apologised. However, according to Schwede66 it seems he expressed (offwiki?) concerns to you about COI some time before I posted here, so I don't understand why you didn't acknowledge your COI until after this discussion started, rather than after Schwede66 raised concerns.
 * Wainuiomartian, thank you for the speedy response and as with Marshelec I appreciate this is not the most relaxing thing in the world to answer questions about. I have the same question as the other three editors.
 * thank you for a prompt and thorough response, I just have a couple of follow-ups:
 * I agree the two interactions you had with Wainuiomartian that I linked don't create a COI, especially since you are such a prolific editor on New Zealand topics. Sorry, I should have made that clearer before. I was more interested in whether you had any offwiki interactions (but you both answered that question anyway).
 * I made some stylistic changes to her edits How do you know Wainuiomartian's gender? I don't see anywhere it's been mentioned onwiki.
 * You don't watchlist your bio – fair enough – how did you come to notice Marshelec was editing it?
 * this was a month after the article had been nominated at DYK could you narrow that timeframe down a bit further? Does "a month after the article had been nominated at DYK" literally mean "7 May" or is it broader?
 * Noting as well, for the record, Wound theology has opened Articles for deletion/Axel Downard-Wilke (2nd nomination). – Teratix ₵ 15:21, 25 May 2024 (UTC)


 * To answer your queries:
 * I was told that "a librarian called X is working on your bio". It was a female name.
 * By looking at the article history.
 * 8 May
 *  Schwede 66  18:45, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * That makes sense, thanks.
 * I was more asking about what prompted you to look at the article history in the first place, given you were actively refraining from watching the article.
 * In that case, although Marshelec has not edited the article since 8 May, he did edit the DYK nomination on 14 May without disclosing his COI, even after you had raised concerns. He replaced the hook image and encouraged reviewers to promote the nomination.
 * Marshelec, I am still at a loss as to why you were fully willing to disclose your COI when it came up for public scrutiny, but stayed silent and indeed continued to COI-edit when private concerns had been raised. – Teratix ₵ 02:15, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Shame and anxiety got in the way and affected my judgement (my mental health is fragile at times). However, I accept without reservation that I should have declared the Conflict of Interest immediately. If had done so, then the disruption and additional work for other editors would have been kept to a minimum. Plus, this would have reduced the severe mental stress that I am now experiencing. I deeply regret my actions and again offer my apologies to all those who have been affected.Marshelec (talk) 06:11, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @Marshelec, You shouldn't feel ashamed, fellow editor. Just a bunch of policies created by the community. Yes, one should follow the rules wherever they practice actions/participate (and most Wikipedia rules are “just” and firm, required for the functioning). You've already regretted your action, which is sufficed, and I believe going forward you would be cautious. But don't let some missteps take even the slightest toll over your mental health, just some website and its rules on the internet isn't worth it. Wishing you good health. X (talk) 10:49, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Look, I don't think it's as simple as "there's literally nothing to feel compunction about at all", but at the same time if it's causing you severe mental stress then yeah, some things are just bigger than Wikipedia. – Teratix ₵ 12:14, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * That it’s not on my watchlist does not mean that once in a while, I get curious and see what’s changed.  Schwede 66  05:59, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. – Teratix ₵ 10:38, 26 May 2024 (UTC)


 * On further investigation, Marshelec was the one who asked Wainuiomartian to write the article. He explicitly notes I am too close to him to write the article myself, indicating he was aware of COI issues as far back as 13 February, well before he started making contributions to the article and DYK nomination. Honestly, finding this has shifted my view on the matter from "unfortunate incident but seems like an honest misjudgement" to "there was definitely awareness, even at the time, that what was going on went against our guidelines". – Teratix ₵ 10:19, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Teratix, It's not a confrontation towards you, but I'd like to state this in general:They have made mistakes and have apologized. Hypothetically assuming that they were even paid or created on someone's behest, what are the implications we may have taken? The way I see it is, when a COI is declared/found, uninvolved editors go and scrutinize the article and omit promo bits and the editors having COI then are required to not edit the article directly and place edit requests on the talk page. Yes, we need transparency here. But at the same time, we shouldn't drag things too far and treat mistakes (or self-aware violations) as some kind of criminal offense. Let's assume they were aware and didn't follow the rules, but what of it now? We can only take preventive measures and warn them about refraining from further violations, if not, place editing restrictions. X (talk) 11:01, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * This. The worst that has happened here is that an editor on Wikipedia has had a link to a blp article about them on the frontpage. A Wikipedia page about a Wikipedian. There are no ongoing "COI issues", no individual or corporation has financially gained from it. No harm, no foul. Let's all move on. JMWt (talk) 11:26, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't think COI editing is somehow less harmful if it relates to a Wikipedian's article. – Teratix ₵ 11:53, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Right. Well, I guess that's where we differ. I consider this a storm in a thimble JMWt (talk) 13:15, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I disagree, there's an important difference between someone making an honest mistake because they aren't familiar with COI guidelines and someone who is fully aware what they're doing is problematic and does it anyway. I agree the first type of editor should be treated leniently because their intentions are fundamentally honest. However, if you're editing against guidelines in full knowledge you're not doing the right thing, to me that calls the assumption of good faith into question. – Teratix ₵ 11:43, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * That's what I said. Let's even assume that their good faith editing is not intact, so what of it now? Let's assume they violated policies, being aware of them or not, and? They have vehemently apologized multiple times, and what are the implications we are to impose now? I've discussed those in my previous response. What matters is what to do next. And as per policies, we can only take preventive measures and warn them about further violations. If they do not comply, restrict their editing access. That's pretty much it. X (talk) 12:43, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I am happy to accept good faith, but I think the remaining issue is that the article is possibly non-notable and possibly not NPOV as it has used non independent sources. The AfD should resolve the first issue, but if it is kept any remaining NPOV issues could be discussed here. TSventon (talk) 12:52, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Something practical at last. Been a rarity in this discussion. but if it is kept any remaining NPOV issues could be discussed here I've talked exactly about this in my earlier responses. Uninvolved editors would scrutinize the article and omit promo/unfit bits. That's all there is to do now. X (talk) 15:20, 26 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Comment - (previously somewhat involved in this, as I pulled the DYK hook from the main page due to the conflict-of-interest issues raised here and at WP:ERRORS) - Firstly, I can accept that was acting in what they considered good faith regarding this issue. Yes, they knew they had a conflict of interest back in February, but I don't think there was a deliberate intention to deceive the community here and even though what happened was clearly a big breach of COI policy, I think their apology and retrospective labelling of the COI is OK. However, I also disagree with the comments above along the lines of "There are no ongoing "COI issues", no individual or corporation has financially gained from it. No harm, no foul. Let's all move on." I think we do need to take some sort of action to stop this happening again, and I'd recommend some sort of warning to Marshelec stating that if there's any sort of repeat of what's happened here then that would lead to formal sanctions e.g. a topic ban from DYK. We have historically been quite strict about editors who attempt use DYK as a venue for undeclared promotion of themselves or their friends or relatives, and there's no reason to create a carve-out here, just because the subjects are well-respected Wikipedians. Finally, on the subject of 's status as chair of the Wikimedia Aotearoa online meetup, that's really an issue for that organisation to decide upon, it's not related to Wikipedia as a whole. It would be wrong for Schwede to act in an adminship capacity on this COIN discussion, but the Chapter's meeting and decisions are for them and aren't binding here. This whole saga is quite unfortunate as I think when the dust settles we're going to remain with a very nice article about Schwede/Axel, and as someone who's known you online for sometime it's certainly interesting to learn of some of the great work you've also done IRL... it's a shame it couldn't remain featured on the Main Page really, but there we go. Cheers  &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 10:47, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your kind thoughts, . I've talked to Marshelec a few times since this investigation started and he is shell-shocked. I appreciate that a formal warning is appropriate but I can guarantee you that even without that, this won’t happen again as it’s taken a big toll on him.
 * Regarding our monthly online meeting, these are being chaired by Siobhan Leachman; she was happy for me to give that presentation. It was well received by attendees and there’s been quite a bit of follow up via our Facebook user group, with even those who did not attend looking through the slides and taking action regarding their own COI management. Someone just called COI the "flavour of the week" topic. I have made further comments on the presentation on the talk page of this noticeboard.  Schwede 66  15:23, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

EcoCute (Japan)


This longtime user has recently appeared at AfD procedures where their battleground behaviors have drawn the attention of several editors. The AfD on EcoCute was closed as merge to Air source heat pump; today it points at EcoCute (Japan) (, by Namazu-tron), a glance at the page histories will show tendentious and "I don't hear you" behaviors from this editor during the deletion discussions. The pages texts themselves are aggressively complimentary and the photograph of the product on the page is linked to the user above (from 2008). BusterD (talk) 15:06, 23 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Thank you for bringing this here, . The editing history and the AfD conduct of Namazu-tron strongly suggest that if they're not outright paid by the Japanese company, they are at the very least acting at their behest. The blatant POV alone should qualify for an indef topic ban, which should turn into a site ban if they try to circumvent it. Owen&times; &#9742;  15:48, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I am not an expert on heat pumps and I don’t have any special knowledge of @Namazu-tron.
 * However I suspect they are NOT being paid for their editing because if they were they would have learnt more of the technical terms in English. For example underfloor heating is only one method of “space heating”. Chidgk1 (talk) 16:51, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Section ”Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion” on my talk page to you is the answer.
 * Will watch further development. Almost final stage for me. Thank you every one.--Namazu-tron (talk) 15:10, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * These comments by Namazu-tron are non-responsive to my initial concerns. I have not accused Namazu-tron of plagiarism or paid editing; neither have I accused them of any specific connected editing. It was my intention to apply a neutral but sufficiently well-sourced report to this board which documents the apparent conflict. It's reasonable to expect engagement which allows us all to understand a long-time contributor's actions. My original concerns (tendentious and IDHY behaviors) go unanswered. BusterD (talk) 19:21, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree that Namazu-tron's response at their talk page is not an adequate explanation/defense. Per my comments at Articles for deletion/EcoCute (Japan), Namazu-tron appears to have intentionally ignored negative coverage of EcoCute in RS in their article-writing on Wikipedia, even when it could play a decisive role in establishing notability for the topic. signed,Rosguill talk 15:31, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Renewed likely UPE by Juanma281984


@Juanma281984 was previously blocked for UPE, which they admitted to (last diff, interested parties can read the entire discussion for context). They successfully appealed the block and have returned to editing, having now promised for at least the second time to declare all paid editing.

Thinkfree Office, created after the unblock, is not neutral. As I mentioned on the talk page, the article has no criticism or negative coverage. This is depsite one of the sources cited containing a healthy dose of criticism, which seems to me like deliberate omission.

This diff removes sourced content (the quote at "tattooed" and the sentence from "Brown's last day at CNN") and adds unsourced content (e.g. "Reuters Institute"). That one diff is too expansive for me to get an overview of, but seems to be biased toward Brown. Also, this user's creation of Redkey USB Ltd includes a token "Controversy" section (albeit unsourced), but still largely seems like UPE for that company.

I don't see a COI/UPE declaration for any of these three cases. A user unblocked after an indef for UPE is on thin ice – either they need to give a very good explanation and clean up after themselves, or I would support an admin getting involved. Toadspike  [Talk]  20:06, 22 May 2024 (UTC)


 * @Deepfriedokra Since you accepted this user's unblock request, you might want to take a look at this. Toadspike   [Talk]  16:31, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Deepfriedokra has suggested that an uninvolved admin review this case. To be clear, I support reinstating the original indef block by @Bilby, who may choose to do so himself. Toadspike   [Talk]  08:49, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * It appears, in general, most of their editing might have some sort of COI. I feel they should not be able to directly move articles to main space if they continue on like this. Rather submit drafts via AFC. X (talk) 12:24, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for raising this. Yes, Juanma281984 is clearly continuing to engage in UPE. Redkey is a clear example, because they had voted keep in the Redkey AFD which ended up deleting it, then recreated it under slightly different name so the two versions of the same article would not be connected. I'll take care of block. Sad, because I did hope they would stick to what they promised, but so be it. - Bilby (talk) 11:47, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Tim121212


Having identified themselves as an editor with a COI as a member of the party, this user has continually engaged in WP:IDHT behaviour on the talk page; firstly repeatedly making attempts to change "far-right" (the sourced description) to "right-wing" (1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and even after being told on the talk page 6 before dropping in a flippant [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:National_Party_(Ireland,_2016)&diff=prev&oldid=1153018432#The_National_Party_aren't_Far_Right._They're_certainly_right_wing,_but_if_anything_just_an_extremely_conservative_party. comment] on the talk page), creating a draft for their youth wing (complete with a ) before adding a great deal of cruft and when reverted, restoring it with ZERO edit summary once, twice, thrice, partially four times and now five times. In the interim, the user has accused me of attempting to make the party "look good". I usually wouldn't care so much about people editing the articles of parties they're involved with so long as it's actually done unbiasedly and without any WP:IDHT concerns but this is absolutely not the case, and enough time has been wasted on this user. Between COI concerns, repeatedly no-summary reverts and failure to WP:GETTHEPOINT, enough is enough. — ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 17:28, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Note that the party this editor is a member of is currently involved in local and European elections in Ireland, so this is particularly timely. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 17:42, 22 May 2024 (UTC)


 * It looks like the editor also thinks that the website of the party is a reliable, truthful source. The Banner  <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 23:07, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I dont understand how its not, im sorry but this is really confusing to me but how is the party website not a reliable source when talking about the parties views? Tim121212 (talk) 23:11, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * It is Wikipedia policy to favor independent third-party sources. -- Pemilligan (talk) 23:35, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't mean to repeatedly bang the drum, but could someone please look into this? We've a self-professed member of a party making repeated disruptive edits and reverting without summary, over an elongated period, including during our ongoing election campaigns here in Ireland. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 13:20, 29 May 2024 (UTC)


 * If someone is making making repeated disruptive edits, the instructions for Dealing with disruptive editors seems like the place to pursue this. -- Pemilligan (talk) 13:51, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Grand, I'll wait and see if an admin wants to take a look at the COI aspect (hence why I brought it here) and then if not I'll take it elsewhere. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 14:30, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Maria-Ana Tupan
(and various IPs, see page history)

COI issues; Romanian IPs (likely ForTupan logged out, see talk) making somewhat promotional edits to the page. ForTupan claims that the article is not about themself, and that their username was chosen out of respect for the author, because it was required to register a name when proposing the article for validation. (This is my first time posting here, so please let me know if I did something wrong)   [[User:CanonNi ]]  (talk • contribs) 13:00, 29 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Similarity of name is not a criterion that establishes the location of a user and his relations with the person in the article. ForTupan is from Oradea and has no connection with Maria-Ana Tupan from Bucharest. Check the IP first! Yes, I chosed my username because I have A LOT of respect for the author, because it was required to register a name when proposing the article for validation. Have a nice day!ForTupan (talk) 15:21, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * You are also making a large number of edits whilst logged out, please don't do this. Theroadislong (talk) 18:07, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Agree! I am glad that the aspects related to my location and my neutrality have been clarified. I am very cooperative if I find good understanding and good intentions. Moreover, I am very grateful for the help received! ForTupan (talk) 05:12, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @ForTupan so if the IPs are you, how are they located in Bucharest?   [[User:CanonNi ]]  (talk • contribs) 05:27, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I think you are confusing. I have no connection with the IPs from Bucharest. Perhaps, at a superficial glance, the IPs have an appearance that can induce confusion, but I log in from Oradea, both from my home address and from the office address. I can log in and log out 100 times if you want, I can post 100 times logged in and logged out if you want, and each time you will notice that I am from Oradea. If you want to find out who are the people from Bucharest who make destructive changes in the article, you will have to communicate with them. I, as a major contributor, am from Oradea. ForTupan (talk) 05:33, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
 * And something else. As you can see, the IP provided by you is a static one, not a dynamic one. This means that the one who operates from Bucharest lives there. Who he is and what his intentions are, I don't care. Whoever wants to check my IP, from home or from the office, can do it. I have nothing to hide. ForTupan (talk) 05:46, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Look at my IP too, it's also a static one. From Oradea.
 * https://whatismyipaddress.com/ip/2a02:2f08:eb08:8b00:e59a:f0e:d9ba:a532
 * Have a nice day! ForTupan (talk) 05:49, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Regardles of whether your IP is a static one, or a dynamic one, you should NOT be editing whilst logged out. Theroadislong (talk) 05:51, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Ok, ok! I learn fast! ForTupan (talk) 05:54, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
 * RCS & RDS S.A. is the main Internet provider in Romania, which operates in most important cities in Romania. The appearance of the IPs is similar for this reason and can be misleading at first glance. Do you understand now, my friend? ForTupan (talk) 05:54, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Indian Army regiments—articles being edited by orders from army brass

 * Multiple articles involving regiments of the Indian Army are likely affected. So far, I've identified these articles:

This started with some edits, including large-scale deletion, addition of unsourced text, and egregious violations of MOS, in the 125 SATA article. In the course of discussion with PRISH123, they stated, These directions have been received pan Indian Army to Update/Create a page of the respective units… If you will be kind enough to scroll through other pages, all the units are updating their data in the said format. (diff) On review of other articles, I saw editing at 20 SATA by two editors—one now blocked, and the other, ArtyGunner12345—which follow the same pattern and indicate the same COI. Accordingly, I bring the matter here, since the scope is too large for a single administrator too monitor. —C.Fred (talk) 17:12, 2 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Seems like it's still ongoing: 313 Field Regiment was created recently and there's also a draft of the 278 Medium Regiment out there as well. Not sure if related but timing seems too coincidental. Procyon117 (talk) 17:45, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Procyon117 The text is so consistent that either it's an actual order with detailed formatting, or it's coordinated sockpuppetry. —C.Fred (talk) 17:52, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I didn't realise this thread existed, and so posted to AN/I. That said, this is something that almost certainly needs more eyes, particularly admin eyes, on it. —<i style="color: #1E90FF;">Jéské Couriano</i> v^&lowbar;^v  threads critiques 18:29, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Just adding a small something from SPI: The SPI is broadly consistent with this being multiple dispersed people, thus CU is not going to be too helpful here. -- zzuuzz (talk) 18:40, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * (same user)
 * SPI link
 * SPI link
 * SPI link

Jitin Prasada


Addition of promotional content (including an image gallery which I have reverted). When I asked about COI on the user's talk page, their response was to delete my post without comment. My suspicion was aroused by a new account making multiple null edits, on this and other wikis, before starting on the article in question. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:59, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Totectors


I suspect that the 'IBG' in the username stands for 'International Brands Group', who own the IP of Totectors. Turned that article into a weird and unfocussed advert, was reverted and told about managing a COI, responded by adding the odd advert back again. 81.187.192.168 (talk) 14:54, 5 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Adding User:JoNo Creatives, who has just reinstated the troublesome edits almost verbatim. I have just advised JoNo Creatives of our paid editing policy. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:53, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Rejoin EU


Editing Rejoin EU and various parliamentary consistencies to add Rejoin EU party candidates with edit summaries mentioning "my party". Username suggests they are a candidate or party operative themselves. Went off the deep end at another editor when challenged about this yesterday, but then calmed down and seemed to accept the advice they were given, but resumed editing UK constituency articles this morning. 90.251.20.238 (talk) 09:51, 9 June 2024 (UTC)


 * All I am doing is correcting omissions from Wikipedia articles that have omitted the candidates that my party is standing at the 2024 UK general election.I have been asked to do this by my party, and I am including references wherever possible. Wikipedia guidance above suggests that there is nothing at all worrying about uncontroversial factual corrections of this kind, see the third bullet point under "Additional notes" at the top of this page.
 * As far as going off the deep end is concerned, the other editor suggested I might want him/her to do something to my edits which looked like some form of control - not something any self-resepecting politician can tolerate. As far as I am concerned the matter has been settled. Edward Dean - Fareham and Waterlooville (talk) 10:00, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Blocked as a soft uw-ublock-wellknown which is not the same issue as their COI. Cabayi (talk) 10:17, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Why have all my previous entries been deleted? If there's a definitoomn of vandalism, that is it! Wikipedia cannot surely be allowed to take sides in the UK general election? NewPolitician (talk) 10:59, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * No one is taking sides; additions to Wikipedia need to be adequately sourced, and so far your edits haven't been. — <i style="color:#8000FF">Czello</i> (<i style="color:#8000FF">music</i>) 11:15, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Deleting entries for all the candidates of a particular political party IS taking sides. Let's go to arbitration. How do I do that? 193.117.166.37 (talk) 11:17, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you're not understanding here, so let me be clear – things being added to Wikipedia need to be sourced. If they're not, they're liable to be removed, regardless of the political party. That's not taking sides; it's the opposite of that. — <i style="color:#8000FF">Czello</i> (<i style="color:#8000FF">music</i>) 11:19, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * What I'm understanding is that Wikipedia is providing incomplete information to its readers, and your rules are preneting the information from being corrected. Moreover, the ommissions are of candidates for one particular political party, which implies that Wikpedia is not being impartial. 193.117.166.37 (talk) 11:20, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * And that means that whoever did the deleting has done wrong, and whoever provided the incomplete information has also done wrong. I think it would actually help Wikipedia for this to be clarified in arbitration - it seems to be a conflict between Wikipedia aims and Wikipedia rules. So how do we go there? 193.117.166.37 (talk) 11:24, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Requiring a source is not a big ask. There's not 'arbitration' required here; please read WP:RS and WP:V. — <i style="color:#8000FF">Czello</i> (<i style="color:#8000FF">music</i>) 11:28, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The user is now renamed to . Cabayi (talk) 10:39, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Great. I noticed that one of my previous edits was "reverted", but no reason seems to have been given. The edit was a simple fact. I guess this was something to do with this process. I am going to try to do it again. NewPolitician (talk) 10:41, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * , I think your guess is wrong. A quick glance at a couple of your edits shows that you have not been providing sources for your changes. You need to provide reliable, verifiable, independent sources for your changes. WP:VNT may help you. Cabayi (talk) 10:59, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Per Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, NewPolitician (indef) and their IP (1 week) blocked for legal threats with a side order of DHT and NOTHERE. 90.251.20.238 (talk) 15:01, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Hamis Kiggundu
Hello,

I am bringing to your attention a dispute concerning the Hamis Kiggundu article, which has recently been reverted to its most recent edit prior to Davey2010's contested reversion. This reversion was necessary due to ongoing allegations of promotional editing and bias. I am now seeking a neutral review of the article to address these concerns and ensure compliance with Wikipedia’s guidelines.

Background:


 * The article was reverted by Davey2010 to a version from 2021, which removed three years' worth of valuable edits and updates.
 * These updates included a detailed summary of a significant lawsuit, business journey, philanthropic efforts, and achievements, all supported by reliable sources.
 * The removed content was written in a neutral tone, similar to articles of other notable individuals like Aliko Dangote, Elon Musk, and Mark Zuckerberg, and was referenced from credible sources.

Concerns:


 * Allegations of Promotional Editing: Despite the neutral tone and reliable sourcing, there are allegations that the recent edits were promotional.
 * Bias and Ownership Concerns: The reversion to a 2021 version appears to be biased and does not respect the collaborative nature of Wikipedia.
 * Impact on Article Quality: The reversion has significantly reduced the quality and comprehensiveness of the article.

Policies Believed to Have Been Violated:


 * Consensus: The reversion did not follow the principle of consensus-building (Consensus).
 * Edit warring: The repeated reversion without attempting to resolve the disagreement through discussion is a form of edit warring (Edit warring).
 * Assume good faith: Assuming bad faith without proper evidence or discussion contradicts the policy (Assume good faith).
 * Ownership of content: Acting as if they own the article by reverting to a preferred version without consensus (Ownership of content).
 * Disruptive editing: Removing significant contributions made over three years is disruptive (Disruptive editing).
 * Purpose and Five Pillars: The reversion contradicts Wikipedia's purpose and five pillars by restricting information and lacking fairness (Purpose, Five pillars).

Request for Review:

Given these concerns, I am requesting a neutral mediator from the Conflict of Interest Noticeboard to:


 * 1) Review the reverted article: Ensure that the article meets Wikipedia’s standards for neutrality, verifiability, and reliability.
 * 2) Address Alleged Promotional Content: Identify and address any sections that may be deemed promotional and make necessary adjustments.
 * 3) Provide Guidance: Offer recommendations to prevent future disputes and ensure the article remains accurate and unbiased.

I believe that a neutral review will help resolve this dispute fairly and maintain the integrity of the article.

Thank you for your assistance in this matter.41.210.145.68 (talk) 11:11, 9 June 2024 (UTC)


 * In short, I reverted to a 2021 revision doe to the promotional tone/wording of the article, The article also appears to have had a long history of paid/promotional editing and I personally suspect the paid bit is the reason why we're all here now too.
 * My resolution would be to send it to AFD and for it to be nuked and recreated by an editor in good standing but maybe that's wishful thinking, Thanks, – Davey 2010 Talk 11:17, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It seems strange thats many editors have a single purpose interest in Kiggundu and that so many are blocked for sockpupptery. Most recently IP editors have been active in creating a huge WP:ADMASQ puffing up the alleged notability of this individual/
 * Davey2010 has made a reasonable reversion to the most recent decent version. It is coincidence that it is one that is under my name, it could have been a prior version.
 * The prior AfD was during the very early stages of this promotion enhancing exercise. I think there are sufficient elements to notability, perhaps notoriety, that mean a future AfD would have little point. My firm belief is that Kiggundu uses this Wikipedia article to further him image through a large pool of UPE editors, both named and IP. A report, with evidence, to Sockpuppet investigations/Izaaqnewton will almost always be productive. 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 12:10, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * FWIW not that it's pertinent/relevant here but I had looked at revisions before yours and yours was the one I was happy with the article being at although I still wasn't happy per se, I had only found this article because they did the exact same copypaste dump at Simple English Wikipedia, Thanks, – Davey 2010 Talk 12:28, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Davey2010 Understood. It often extends to promotional pictures of Kiggundu on Commons as well. I agree, "mine" is not a version to be happy with, but it may be the best available. 🇺🇦  Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 12:30, 9 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I would like to address the points raised by User:Davey2010 and User:Timtrent regarding the reversion and allegations of promotional editing.

1. Promotional Tone Allegation:

The allegation of a promotional tone is subjective and requires specific examples to be addressed. The edits made over the last three years were supported by verifiable and reliable sources. These included:

- A chronological summary of a lawsuit and its resolution, documented by court records and news reports. - Detailed history of Hamis Kiggundu’s business journey, similar to those found in articles about other notable entrepreneurs such as Aliko Dangote, Elon Musk, and Mark Zuckerberg. - Philanthropic efforts, like the donation of 100,000 Royal Palm Trees to Kampala Capital City Authority, verified by government sources. - Business achievements such as the redevelopment and grand opening of Nakivubo Stadium, covered by multiple reliable sources.

If specific sections are deemed promotional, they should be discussed and revised rather than the entire article being reverted.

2. Allegations of Paid Editing:The assertion that this article is a result of paid editing should be substantiated with concrete evidence. Wikipedia permits paid editing, provided there is full disclosure and adherence to the neutral point of view (NPOV) policy. In 2020, the user Mark Had disclosed his conflict of interest prior to the article passing Articles for Creation (AFC). However, despite this transparency, he was blocked, and an undisclosed paid editing tag was added almost a year later, in March 2021. Wikipedia operates on the principle that "what is written is more important than who writes it," as outlined in its core content policies. This means that the focus should be on the verifiability, neutrality, and reliability of the content rather than the identity of the contributor. It is essential to respect the Assume good faith principle. If there are legitimate concerns regarding sockpuppetry, these should be addressed impartially and without bias through appropriate channels, such as Sockpuppet investigations. It is crucial that all actions taken are in good faith, ensuring a fair and collaborative editing environment.

3. Quality and Content Removal:

The reversion has significantly reduced the quality of the article by removing well-referenced and neutrally presented information. The edits made were in line with Wikipedia's policies on verifiability, reliability, and neutrality. Removing such content without proper discussion and consensus is contrary to the principles of Consensus and Disruptive editing.

4. Previous Discussions and Administrative Actions:

Previous discussions and administrative actions should be taken into account. A blanket reversion to a 2021 version disregards the collaborative efforts of multiple editors. The article should be reviewed for specific content issues rather than a wholesale reversion, which is disruptive and not in line with Consensus.

Request for a Neutral Review:

Given these points, I request the following:


 * 1) A detailed review of the specific sections alleged to be promotional, with a focus on neutrality and reliable sourcing.
 * 2) Involvement of a neutral mediator or administrator to ensure a fair resolution.

Policies Believed to Have Been Violated:

- Consensus: The reversion did not follow the principle of consensus-building (Consensus). - Edit warring: The repeated reversion without attempting to resolve the disagreement through discussion is a form of edit warring (Edit warring). - Assume good faith: Assuming bad faith without proper evidence or discussion contradicts the policy (Assume good faith). - Ownership of content: Acting as if they own the article by reverting to a preferred version without consensus (Ownership of content). - Disruptive editing: Removing significant contributions made over three years is disruptive (Disruptive editing). - Purpose and Five Pillars: The reversion contradicts Wikipedia's purpose and five pillars by restricting information and lacking fairness (Purpose, Five pillars).

I believe that addressing the specific concerns through a neutral review will help resolve this dispute fairly and maintain the integrity of the article.


 * Note:I have recently observed certain actions regarding the subject's media on Commons and edits to the article that raise concerns about fairness and adherence to Wikipedia policies.

Firstly, User:Timtrent tagged all of the subject's media for deletion despite substantial permissions. When these deletions did not occur, User:Davey2010 proceeded to blank three years' worth of edits. It is noteworthy that both users are located in the UK, which raises the possibility that Davey2010 might have been influenced by Timtrent, as evidenced by reverting to Timtrent's revision.

These actions suggest a potential conflict of interest and might be perceived as being done in bad faith. The assumption of ownership over this content by a select group of users contradicts the principles outlined in Wikipedia's Ownership of content policy (WP:OWN). This policy clearly states that no one owns the content here and that all contributions are collaborative efforts.

Additionally, labeling every editor of this article as engaging in undisclosed paid editing (UPE) without substantial evidence seems excessive and contrary to the Assume good faith (WP:AGF) guideline. Not every notable figure's edits should be deemed promotional when they adhere to Wikipedia's Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV) and Verifiability (WP:V) policies.

It is also concerning that all recent editors have been submitted for sockpuppet investigations, which seems to target contributors unfairly. According to the Blocking policy (WP:BLOCK), blocks are meant to prevent disruptive editing and not to punish users. Repeatedly calling for investigations can discourage new contributors and create a hostile editing environment.

In light of these points, I respectfully request that unbiased and non-conflicted mediators be involved to ensure that this article is managed fairly and in accordance with Wikipedia's core content policies. It is essential that all editors are treated with respect and that any actions taken are transparent and justified.

Thank you for your understanding and cooperation in maintaining the integrity and collaborative spirit of Wikipedia

Thank you for your consideration.41.210.141.54 (talk) 13:10, 9 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Please stop pinging me, I don't have the time, energy or patience to read your long walls of text and baseless accusations. As stated above I found this article via Simple English Wikipedia and again stated I reverted to Tims reversion because it was least promotional and overall the best. If I really wanted to be anal I would've gone a hell of a lot further back, I will be keeping tabs on this article so don't need to be pinged, Thanks. – Davey 2010 Talk 14:23, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi @Davey2010,Your commitment to maintaining the quality of the article is appreciated. Considering the ongoing dispute and allegations of bias/promotional content, you can see that the article was circumstantially reverted to its prior state in order to facilitate neutral mediation. Discussions like these can understandably become frustrating, but it’s crucial to stay calm and adhere to Wikipedia's guidelines and policies while waiting for the Conflict of Interest Noticeboard mediators to review the situation. Reacting emotionally may hinder reaching a constructive resolution. Allowing the mediators to assess the content impartially and provide guidance will be beneficial.Thank you for your understanding and cooperation. 41.210.145.169 (talk) 16:39, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Hamis Kiggundu has had its protection level enhanced to ECP as a result of unhelpful IP edits. That has no effect on this discussion, and is for information only.
 * The two tl;dr swathes of text do not show that there is any COI in the edits by Davey2010, whose reversion has been performed also by another respected editor.
 * This is the wrong venue since there is no COI. It may be that WP:DRN might be better, but, in view of the massive UPE sockpuppetry ring already found for this article among others, I have my doubts.
 * I suggest that this be closed as "no case to answer" 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 09:27, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Ozark Christian College


User is editing page with a username that indicates association with the org. Did not respond to warning in February and has continued to edit. glman (talk) 13:49, 11 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I've soft blocked them for their username. Secretlondon (talk) 13:55, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Flexcar


Saw this editor add advertising language to Flexcar. I reverted and warned for COI. But going back to the article, they turned it into an advert back in March. I'm hesitant to revert further back because the article was a bit rubbish even before that and any attempt by an IPv6 editor to radically shorten the article would be reverted by a bot.

So, some more eyes, and some further advice (to me and/or Creativebuffalo), would be good, please. 2A00:23C5:50E8:EE01:74C9:F21C:7D37:E976 (talk) 21:01, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Cut the article down a bit and watchlisted it. Jake Wartenberg (talk) 16:18, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

COI for something NOT published?


Hi, I would like to self-report an incident that happened in 2016. I am not sure if it qualifies as a COI on Wikipedia or not. Back in 2016 I was still trying to figure out what kind of work was appropriate for me. Our HR person suggested that I work on a page for a donor to the library where I work as a Wikipedian-in-Residence, and I said I would try, but couldn't guarantee any specific kind of content (right, I should never have agreed to do that). I spent several weeks researching and creating a page in my sandbox for a man who made his fortune off of real estate (he's dead now). There were definitely enough sources on him for him to pass notability guidelines. One of my main sources was actually a biography commissioned by his trust. After I was happy with what I wrote in my sandbox, I sent it to the HR person, who sent it on to someone at the trust. The trust people hated it because I mentioned that the houses he built were not available to black people to purchase, as was the case with a lot of homes built then (a detail in the biography THEY commissioned, which I guess they also didn't like). Our HR person told me not to publish it. Was NOT publishing it a COI as outlined in our COI guidelines? Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 18:42, 28 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Thanks for this retrospective declaration. You have a long list of COI declarations on your user page. From my perspective, I'd add the above story to the list and that should be all that's needed.  Schwede 66  03:31, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the advice, I added it to my list. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 17:33, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * It's probably a COI to philosophers, but not doing something doesn't go against COI policy.
 * And, unless you're still under contract or whatever, I'd tell HR to suck it and publish the thing from a non-affiliated account in your personal capacity. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:11, 11 June 2024 (UTC)