Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 209

Perkins Eastman


The referenced user (above) has been making a few changes to the article above. There have been a couple test edits, which I have no issues, but the is what I worry about. This article was extensively edited with promotional language. Internal links were broken, links to their companies website were added for the founders, in place of the relevant people's Wikipedia pages, and some red flags appeared for me when editing, pertaining to the previously mentioned "first edit" which can be found Here's why I removed them, and why I believe this Wikipedian has a COI with this article, and maybe the industry of this company in general:

1. The language used in the edits, such as "after beginning his career at the famed Burnham and Root in Chicago" and the change of "Dwight Heald Perkins, started an architecture firm" to "Dwight Heald Perkins, opened his own architecture firm." This type of language is glorifying the people involved in the company, which leads me to believe there is a COI.

2. Next, the links are what really raised red flags. Once again, this is concerning the individuals mentioned in the article. One of the "higher ups," Mary-Jean Eastman, does not have a Wikipedia article, and the referenced user above has linked the companies website to her name.

3. I have a bit of understanding in SEO, and from what I can tell, this is an attempt to beef up the Wikipedia article as a means of promotion, over other companies websites, on relevant topics which the company has a market share in. This user created a list of "practice areas of the firm," which introduce a lot of words. This means that the referenced Wikipedia article will be boosted in search rankings for searches that include the words this user has added to the page, such as "K-12 education" and "science + technology."

4. I'm a bit tired, so this one may be oversight on my part, but I thought it might be useful to include. This user added a lot of further reading resources, but the first one includes text which just beefs up this guy's person a lot, by explaining the article's subject "undertook the study as the result of winning the AIA College of Fellows’ Latrobe Prize in 2019, which came with a $100,000 grant." Just sounds like a lot of promotion, and it didn't sit well with me, especially after reading the above things in the article.

5. Update: After reading the user's talk page message to me, he claims to be the "chief communications writer for Perkins Eastman," and he states "it is my job to see to it that the facts surrounding our company are correct."

I had a lot of extra time to really analyze everything, so I hope this explains my issues with the edits from this user. I put in the time, as I can tell from the users talk page, they really did spend a lot of time editing the article, and I want to ensure their (hopefully) honest work has good faith.

OnlyNano 00:47, 12 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Endorse block.  thetechie@enwiki  :  ~/talk/  $  01:23, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I am copying your notes below so I can reply to them in line:
 * The referenced user (above) has been making a few changes to the article above. There have been a couple test edits, which I have no issues, but the first edit is what I worry about. This article was extensively edited with promotional language. Internal links were broken, links to their companies website were added for the founders, in place of the relevant people's Wikipedia pages.
 * I searched for a Wikipedia page for Mary-Jean Eastman and found none, so I linked to the bio we have for her. I have never before edited anything on Wikipedia and had no idea this was wrong. There has long been a sensitivity--especially because there are so few women leaders in the architecture industry--that Brad gets more recognition than Mary-Jean, when they in reality are fully equal partners. It seemed honestly odd to me that Brad's name would be linked but, to the reader, Mary Jean, without a link, may look like she was undeserving of one.
 * and some red flags appeared for me when editing, pertaining to the previously mentioned "first edit" which can be found here Here's why I removed them, and why I believe this Wikipedian has a COI with this article, and maybe the industry of this company in general:
 * As I demonstrated in my original note, I'm happy to be transparent about who I am and who I work for. Please let me know where I should do that. (and my name is Jennifer -- I am a woman)
 * 1. The language used in the edits, such as "after beginning his career at the famed Burnham and Root in Chicago" and the change of "Dwight Heald Perkins, started an architecture firm" to "Dwight Heald Perkins, opened his own architecture firm." This type of language is glorifying the people involved in the company, which leads me to believe there is a COI.
 * I wasn't intentionally trying to glorify this man. I'm fine with reverting to "started an." As for "famed," if you look at the Burnham and Root page on Wikipedia, I believe you would draw the same conclusion, but again, happy to remove that word.
 * 2. Next, the links are what really raised red flags. Once again, this is concerning the individuals mentioned in the article. One of the "higher ups," Mary-Jean Eastman, does not have a Wikipedia article, and the referenced user above has linked the companies website to her name.
 * Please see my note above on Mary Jean Eastman. I would prefer either that both founders have links or neither do. What is your suggestion?
 * 3. I have a bit of understanding in SEO, and from what I can tell, this is an attempt to beef up the Wikipedia article as a means of promotion, over other companies websites, on relevant topics which the company has a market share in. This user created a list of "practice areas of the firm," which introduce a lot of words. This means that the referenced Wikipedia article will be boosted in search rankings for searches that include the words this user has added to the page, such as "K-12 education" and "science + technology."
 * The page as I found it already listed practice areas, and the list was incomplete. I don't know who contributed the 2021 wording, but my only motivation was to make the list complete. If you look at our website, those are the practice areas where the firm does work in. I wouldn't have added to this list if the list wasn't already there. I probably have less understanding of SEO than you do. I absolutely wasn't trying to boost Perkins Eastman, only to convey the most accurate information. (and "K-12 education" was already on the list before I added additional practice areas to it)
 * 4. I'm a bit tired, so this one may be oversight on my part, but I thought it might be useful to include. This user added a lot of further reading resources, but the first one includes text which just beefs up this guy's person a lot, by explaining the article's subject "undertook the study as the result of winning the AIA College of Fellows’ Latrobe Prize in 2019, which came with a $100,000 grant." Just sounds like a lot of promotion, and it didn't sit well with me, especially after reading the above things in the article.
 * You have more experience with Wikipedia pages than I do. This was my very first attempt. But the existing reading list had a headline whose most recent date was 2021. The company has done many things since then. I was only trying to make the list more current. I'm fine with taking that additional language off the research study description, which I merely copied from our site without thinking.
 * I'm a former journalist. I fully understand the value of conveying accurate, neutral information. We have our own website as well as plenty of other ways to promote our company, and I honestly came into this Wikipedia page wanting to correct the errors and update the information. I know we don't own this page and it is maintained by the community. I hope we can work out a way to ensure the information on the Perkins Eastman page is at the very least current and correct. Thank you. Jserge630 (talk) 13:59, 12 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Noting that it appears closely connected contributors have been controlling the content of this page for years.-- Ponyo bons mots 16:00, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Can you elaborate? Clearly we don't "control" the content here, otherwise my edits would have gone through. There is significant edit history on this page that long predates my arrival in 2021. I don't recognize any of the users as being tied to Perkins Eastman. In fact, some of my edits that were rejected, regarding the ranking of Perkins Eastman both in NY and around the world, reflect that our rankings went DOWN. They are lower today than they were in 2021. The existing article cites those higher numbers. I tried to correct with the LOWER numbers but those were rejected. I find your comment to come across as an accusation. If you read my notes above, I am only trying to ensure that this page has accurate information.
 * And let's compare to the Perkins&Will page. they have their logo and photos of their project work all over the page, like it's a brochure. They have language like "Perkins&Will attracted national attention..." and then a list of "notable" buildings. There is a link on the page to one of their press releases boating they have more LEED projects than any other firm in the world. How is this permitted when our own edit history contains rejected language that "sounds like a press release." This claim on the P&W page is not supported by any independent source. Why are they not sourcing this claim through the USGBC?
 * Moving on to Gensler, which is also allowed to have its logo on the page. They refer to their "megaprojects," which sound very editorial. They talk about projects being "applauded by politicians," (editorial). The citations to BD+C are thinly veiled press releases filled with praise (see "Gensler: the One Firm Firm). The awards list include mentions like "for the 47th consecutive year" (editorial). They also list "notable" projects and have project images on their page -- again, like a brochure.
 * Now on to Foster & Partners. I was criticized for listing too many practice areas, but they list nearly as many, along with many specific projects underneath those practice areas, most of which link back to their web site. They also list "current" projects, which I doubt anyone besides someone tied to the firm would have known to include. They also list a whole gallery of project images, plus a huge list of awards.
 * We do none of these things -- no project pictures or project lists and links, no list of awards, and we can't even add our own logo as all these other people do. I would love to do a list of our own "notable" projects and awards -- would those go through as they have been permitted for these other firms? I truly feel that we are getting unequal treatment when compared to the pages of our peers in the industry. Jserge630 (talk) 18:21, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I'll offer what guidance I can here:
 * Gensler and Foster & Partners had edits made to the page through requests made on the respective talk pages. This was done as the editors interested in making changes had a conflict of interest.
 * Most logos are acceptable for use on their respective Wikipedia articles. The logos for each of the linked articles are considered public domain as they are composed of simple text and do not meet the threshold of originality needed for copyright protection; thus, they are uploaded to Wikimedia Commons (see: c:File:Foster_and_partners.svg). There is nothing excluding you or anyone else from uploading the Perkins Eastman logo to Commons and adding it to the article given that it seems to meet a similar standard of just being text.
 * The overall quality of references and editorializing done in these articles is unfortunate, but won't be changed unless someone comes along who really cares about maintaining neutrality or wants to improve these specific articles to a higher standard. In general, architecture firms are just one of many types of companies that receive less scrutiny on Wikipedia due to less of a public image and less interest by editors. I can only guess that your edit was singled out and reverted because it was tagged as "removed references" and was done by a brand new user. Recon  rabbit  20:16, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the explanation. How do I turn my edits into a request? I am brand new at this and was not aware that this was the path I needed to take -- until all my edits were rejected. I would love for there to have been some sort of note upon my creating an account that this was the process. I only saw the rules and guidelines after all my edits were rejects whole-cloth. Jserge630 (talk) 21:21, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * You can use the talk page of the article you want to make a request (that would be this page), and you can read WP:ER, to understand how to make edit requests. I made loads of mistakes as a new user as well, so don't worry! I would also suggest putting on your user page that you have a conflict of interest. As WP:COI states (the page on conflict of interests):
 * "Someone having a conflict of interest is a description of a situation, not a judgment about that person's opinions, integrity, or good faith."
 * That just means that users will take an extra look at your edits to certain articles, but it doesn't mean your not allowed to edit! WP:DISCLOSE has some templates (you can learn what those are here).
 * To those involved in the discussion, I oppose a block with the following conditions:
 * - This user should just follow the standards for disclosing a COI, and make "clean" edits, with no promotional intent
 * - Her job title, or what she claims it is, does not say she is required to promote. I think it is appropriate that she is focused on editing her companies article, provided there is no promotional intents going forward.
 * - The user wants to try and get better with editing, and is willing to follow the standards. She, not even when asked, disclosed she was affiliated, and that is a step in the right direction. Provided she follows the policies that she now knows, I see no problem with this user making edits. OnlyNano 21:47, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I went into the Talk page for the Perkins Eastman page and requested the edits outlined in the link you had at the very top. I also went into the Teahouse for assistance in adding logo/images etc. And you are right: My job is not promotional. I am strictly internal comms at Perkins Eastman. I do not perform any PR or outreach work for the company. Jserge630 (talk) 22:00, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I just posted my COI on my User page as suggested. Jserge630 (talk) 22:06, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * You're really making waves, it's good to see people with a role such as yours be transparent and understanding! OnlyNano 22:36, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree with @Reconrabbit. Their page also makes a lot of sense, as it provides information about the designer behind buildings. Let's say someone wanted to know who made Fort Collins High School. Perkins&Will provides the information on the page that they made that building, a picture, and that's it. No marketing language, nothing overly general.
 * Awards and project images are fine. You can even add your companies logo right now, and nobody would revert your edit. You're providing your companies logo, which is non-promotional. Feel free to add awards, as long as it has a reliable, non-primary source. The only thing we are worried about is the fact that the edit you made initially looks like your only intention was to promote the company you work for. OnlyNano 21:21, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Can you review my notes @OnlyNano? Can you approve any of my edits? And I don't actually know how to add our logo. I know Wordpress, and on Wordpress you click "add media," but there seems to be no option there. Is there another forum to submit all this stuff and then someone else adds it? Like, how do I add project pictures? Jserge630 (talk) 21:24, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * You can check out how to use images here, and for future questions, I suggest you head over to the Teahouse (I saw you posted there, that's great!). I will have the page watched, and help you out with reviewing changes. I will also check out your old edits, and see what we can keep. Thanks! OnlyNano 22:35, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much :-) Jserge630 (talk) 23:00, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Of course! OnlyNano 23:04, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Aleksandr Celiadin
A number of users who edited the article are already blocked:
 * (a sock of SurferSquall)
 * (a sock of SurferSquall)
 * (a sock of SurferSquall)

Found this while removing citations to Simple Flying. Something sketchy going on here: Aleksandr Celiadin is the founder of GetJet Airlines, his article seems to be edited exclusively by accounts with limited other edits. The company seems to have previously set up an account and I think the other accounts seem to be likely related to each other. There is also frequently IP edits on this article adding material from the company (most recently ) and one of the accounts listed above deleted some (admittedly not well sourced) negative info about the company. Avgeekamfot (talk) 15:31, 6 June 2024 (UTC)


 * A new account has shown up continuing this pattern of edits:
 * I reverted but I believe these pages could do with a higher level of protection/these users seem to be connected. Avgeekamfot (talk) 13:17, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I reverted but I believe these pages could do with a higher level of protection/these users seem to be connected. Avgeekamfot (talk) 13:17, 13 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I have redirected Aleksandr Celiadin to GetJet Airlines, as there is not enough to justify a separate article. Edwardx (talk) 18:13, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Names of customers of a UPE agency have been revealed in reviews
Browsing the internet, I have found a Trustpilot profile profile of a UPE agency. The agency is named "Wiki Proficiency" and is seemingly banned per WP:ABTACH.

There is an interesting pattern in their reviews. As for pre-2024 reviews, I could not find Wikipedia articles ordered by the reviewers, and there is a large number of very negative reviews.

In 2024, this pattern breaks. Positive reviews dominate, and for a majority of them, I could find articles named after the reviewers. No article had been created before the reviewer wrote a review to Trustpilot, and (with a few exceptions) the reviews were written no more than a month after the creation of corresponding articles. Where I was unable to find an article named after the reviewer, the reviewer mostly refered to themselves in plural or refered to their "company". I should however note I haven't found any relevant AfDs related to negative reviews.

There is a catch, however. Some of the article creators had over 1000 edits. There is one with 16000 edits and one even with over 40000 edits. As much as I try to assume good faith, I do not see any better explanation than that the editors were paid. I find it highly unlikely that the UPE company is tricking me.

If we agree the articles are paid for, we should do something with them. Even if some of them aren't downright promotional, the company is profiting of intransparency and dishonesty, so per WP:IAR, we should so something to stop them, even if unprecedented. Some options are deletion for a fixed period of time or draftification (the closing editor of the discussion that resulted in CBAN for the company noted that potentially useful articles might be draftified.)

Here are the suspected-UPE articles: I hope you could give me some advice. I intentionally didn't name the article creators, as I don't want to cast baseless aspersions before being advised on this matter.
 * 1) Calsher Dear
 * 2) Vidya Madhavan
 * 3) Jessica Lai
 * 4) Tania Munz (here I should note that the reviewer wrote her first name as "Tanya" in her review)
 * 5) Michael C. Casey
 * 6) Felipe Lara
 * 7) Hannan Azlan
 * 8) Andris Morozovs
 * 9) Rob Ezell
 * 10) Claire Lombardo
 * 11) Masha Kondratenko
 * 12) John Yurtchuk
 * 13) Virgilijus Trakimavičius

—Janhrach (talk) 17:40, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I suspect the UPE is tricking you; claiming work they haven't done to bolster their profile sounds like a reasonable effective marketing ploy.
 * Further, I would find it very surprising if someone like Michael C. Casey, the director of the United States National Counterintelligence and Security Center, cares about having a stub Wikipedia article. BilledMammal (talk) 17:45, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It's not uncommon for mercenaries to claim credit for work they haven't done, in the (sadly very justified) hope potential clients don't do their due diligence first. I would not believe anything they say without concrete proof that they actually worked on those pages. —Jéské Couriano v^&lowbar;^v  threads critiques 17:56, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Many thanks. Actually, how common is it for UPE companies to pick their fake clients this sophisticately? I mean, it is no coincidence that the articles were created short time before their "reviews"; it is quite probably part of their deception. Janhrach (talk) 18:21, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Common enough that it's something that should be taken into consideration when evaluating UPE claims based on what the merc outfit says. This is a line of work where ethical considerations are at the bottom of the priorities list. —Jéské Couriano v^&lowbar;^v  threads critiques 18:23, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Pretty much always, because most UPEs don't have genuine articles they can point to. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 14:19, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The TrustPilot looks like it's getting artificially inflated reviews. I sorted through a good amount of them and all of the 5-stars are pretty generic praises, no specific instances of "above and beyond" that a normal review might show, no name call outs. Peppered in are a few 1-star reviews still (which should certainly be watched out for in the future, should Chef Eddie G suddenly get his Wikipedia Page).
 * I think the value in this find is less about the articles they're claiming and more about the articles that people have asked them to make and they haven't. If someone went to one UPE, then they'll probably go to another eventually. Lindsey40186 (talk) 15:51, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Jeff L. Lieberman


This user has been repeatedly warned about COI editing and as recently as May 2024 continues to edit articles with a suspected COI. Vegantics (talk) 18:36, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Draft:Vishal Bawa


Writing about themselves on Wikipedia without disclosing COI. Myrealnamm&#39;s Alternate Account (talk) 15:41, 28 May 2024 (UTC)


 * My Real Name As Per Government Identity vishal Dwivedi im hail from Kanpur Uttar Pradesh if you requred any more info contact me thank you. ItsVishalBawa (talk) 16:00, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Hello my rael name is vishal dwivedi im a independent artist so i create this Wikipedia page This is my personal Page Comment.thank you. ItsVishalBawa (talk) 16:02, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I think there's a bit of a language barrier issue, I don't quite understand what the user is saying (here, and on their talk page User_talk:ItsVishalBawa), whether they are or are not the Vishal Bawa described in the above draft. If they are, then this is obvs an autobio. If they're not, then the username is misleading and must be changed. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:22, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Itsvishalbawa is mh Wikipedia log in user name thats the reason im facing on create account time and My Artist name is vishal Bawa try to understand this situation. ItsVishalBawa (talk) 09:18, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Unless you are Vishal Bawa, you cannot use his name as your username. If you are not him, please tell us a new username you want to use, I can change it for you.
 * If English is not your main language that you use to communicate, you should edit the Wikipedia that is written in your primary language. 331dot (talk) 12:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes Please help me on this case i want to change my username itsmvishalbawa to Vishal Bawa..
 * Please help. ItsVishalBawa (talk) 09:38, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't really see the difference there; and you still haven't made clear if you are this person. 331dot (talk) 12:03, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * If this not different on the name so why not publish my draft article and whats the docs requred for the clear this use are person or not. ItsVishalBawa (talk) 12:41, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * We are still having trouble understanding you. Could you try to write your text through a translator? It might help us better understand you. Myrealnamm&#39;s Alternate Account (talk) 12:43, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Dear Wikipedia team, please tell me what documents do you need to publish this pending draft.
 * Please Check This,
 * https://www.google.co.in/search?q=vishal+bawa&client=ms-opera-mobile&sca_esv=7fb4d39484240f25&sca_upv=1&channel=new&espv=1&ei=MUVsZriRIqLMseMPr4KQqAs&ved=2ahUKEwjLnMKZmduGAxVFbmwGHetyB7UQ_coHegQIPBAg&uact=5&si=ACC90nyLlcElEvb2bNLvGYvz3qiAohwQf5zV0YPZPub8GYrCKd2RPXuXgywGgNYV2BdlcTpI5CoZAu068mSxFdBgI5PQTtbvk6RWe9YoTvC2ylpqCm-vAxM%3D&ictx=1
 * Our "Google Knowledge Pannel. ItsVishalBawa (talk) 13:27, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @ItsVishalBawa Are you Vishal Bawa? Myrealnamm&#39;s Alternate Account (talk) 13:31, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes ItsVishalBawa (talk) 04:38, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * My Real Name Is Vishal Dwivedi and Artist name Vishal Bawa. ItsVishalBawa (talk) 04:44, 15 June 2024 (UTC)


 * The draft is a clear case of autobiography. I believe the confusion is arising from "Vishal Bawa" being a pseudonym adopted by "Vishal Dwivedi" and so when said that their real name is Vishal Dwivedi (and that their "Artist name" is Vishal Bawa) that was a confirmation of them being the subject of the draft biography. Not sensing any ill-intent but it is likely that our standard templated messages linking to the relevant policies are too complicated for the user to navigate; will drop them a note to see if that helps. Abecedare (talk) 14:08, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I am just telling you that my real name is Vishal Dwivedi and my artist name is Vishal BawaBut on Sign up time My username suggest me to itsVishalBawa.
 * Please Tell me how should i do. ItsVishalBawa (talk) 04:41, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @ItsVishalBawa: thank you for finally confirming that you are, indeed, the person you are writing about. Please read and understand our autobiography policy WP:AUTOBIO. Autobiographies are very strongly discouraged. For the same reason you also have a conflict of interest (COI), which you must disclose if you wish to continue, see WP:COI. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:07, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Please tell me what I need to do now to publish it ItsVishalBawa (talk) 07:54, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi Team,
 * Please Help me on this Topic. ItsVishalBawa (talk) 07:56, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @ItsVishalBawa: this noticeboard is for discussing conflicts of interest; for general editing advice, try the WP:AFCHD or Teahouse. But since you ask, there is nothing in your draft that suggests you are notable enough to warrant an article. My advice therefore is to drop this matter entirely. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:59, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

David W. Bates


Warned this editor about their obvious conflict of interest and paid editing. They continued to edit the article in question, so here we are. 81.187.192.168 (talk) 13:58, 17 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I work at Brigham and Women's Hospital and am David Bates's Executive Assistant, so updating his profile is within my normal job purview. I have updated factual information only that was provided to me by Dr. Bates, with proof available. DWB Executive Assistant (talk) 14:01, 17 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Read Paid-contribution disclosure. Then make the necessary declaration on your talk page. And then read Conflict of interest, Reliable sources and Neutral point of view. Wikipedia does not host 'profiles', it is an encyclopaedia. All content has to be neutrally written, and based on published reliable sources. If you wish to boost Bates' career, you will need to find somewhere else to do so. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:06, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I have read what you suggested, thank you. And excuse me for using the wrong word, profile. My aim here was simply to provide updated information. DWB Executive Assistant (talk) 14:09, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I have not been directly or indirectly paid to update this entry. DWB Executive Assistant (talk) 14:34, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Just an hour ago you wrote "I work at Brigham and Women's Hospital and am David Bates's Executive Assistant, so updating his profile is within my normal job purview". What has changed in that hour? 81.187.192.168 (talk) 15:05, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Nothing has changed. Can you please tell me how to go about getting updated, factual, verifiable information posted? The information listed was incorrect, so I was only updating it. And I don't know who to "make the necessary declaration on [my] talk page." I am new to this and the attacks are not kind. DWB Executive Assistant (talk) 15:12, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @DWB Executive Assistant: See this page. By “the affected talk page” it means the “Talk” tab at the top of the article.
 * Also, please make sure that your changes can be verified with sources if possible.
 * Thanks! Rusty  talk contribs 15:58, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It seems that the template already has been added on the talk page. Rusty  talk contribs 15:59, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * A quick question: does the use of the username 'DWB Executive Assistant' breach WP:USERNAME?
 * (Specifically the part of that policy that states 'that usernames are not allowed on Wikipedia if they [...] only describe a particular role, title, position [...].)
 * The user states above that they are literally 'David [W.] Bates's Executive Assistant'. Axad12 (talk) 20:19, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I'd like to shut this account down! Had I known it violated a policy, I obviously would not have used it, but I'm so glad you asked the question! DWB Executive Assistant (talk) 20:21, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I’d persevere if I was you. At this point all you need to do is familiarise yourself with a few Wikipedia policies (particularly those quoted earlier in this thread), then track down some sources that comply with WP:RS that provide evidence to support the various edits you were trying to make, and then request the changes on the talk page for your boss’ article. Assuming the requested edits are factually correct, not promotional, and can be verified by independent sources then the changes will probably be agreed and your boss will be happy. Plus, you’ll be being paid for editing Wikipedia, while everyone else will be doing it for free. So, as I say, I’d persevere... Axad12 (talk) 21:52, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

AvePoint


Hi all! Sorry if this is weird; I've dabbled in Wikipedia editing off and on over the years, but I haven't looked at it for a while, so I'm honestly a little shaky on Wiki markup currently. My main user account is, although it is currently inactive.

Essentially, I'm here to confirm that this IP belongs to the internal company VPN for AvePoint, and it appears to have provided a large amount of the edits to the AvePoint Wikipedia page (funnily, I just found this out after I poured coffee on my keyboard and almost made an accidental nonsense edit to the page for Adwaita (design language) while trying to clean it up).

I'm disclosing this because I've noticed before that the page kinda reeked of WP:PROMO and WP:COIEDIT. I really appreciate and align myself with Wikipedia's wish for a neutral PoV, and I think the evidence within the special contributions for this IP paint a pretty clear picture.

I think AvePoint as an entity could quite possibly qualify for notability, but it's pretty clear, both with it being known edits have come internally from CoI editors, as well as the advertisement-reading current status of the page, that it may need to be cleared of most of the information within it so it can be written more accurately.

Hope this helps! I'm not sure there's really any reason to notify other editors, since I don't know of the history of the page, but I know for sure this IP is involved, and I am currently this IP, but will certainly do what's needed (on my main account, if needed) to make good on that if you need it.

Will try to respond if there's any questions. Thank you! 38.105.223.146 (talk) 22:00, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Alexander Smolensky


I'm here not knowing where else to go for the best, and in the spirit of WP:DOLT.

These IPs have slowly spent the day removing information from this Russian enemy of Putin. The first edit tried to quote our article Right to be forgotten, which is why I'm mentioning DOLT: they didn't make a legal threat, but I can see why they would want this person, and their location information, removing. This isn't the way to go about it, and I have no idea if we would even consider granting the removal of sourced information in this way, but that's all way above my pay grade and having better editors than I look into this seems a good idea.

I'm only going to inform the IPv4 editors of this thread, as anything else is just me chasing my tale. YMMV, of course. 81.187.192.168 (talk) 18:04, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Cassandrajoymusic


The following diff comment is what brought my attention to this, theres no reason other than a WP:COI to put that as the edit reason.

The user username leads me to beleive its a company possibly paid for by the person the article is about. TagKnife (talk) 23:57, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

TrueBlueBabe


The user self identified as the person the page is about in this diff and continues to attempt to remove the content as out-of-date TagKnife (talk) 01:29, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Jim Sikora


This user was warned of COI editing on 3/7/2024 and recently edited the article for Jim Sikora. They have almost exclusively edited the article for Jim Sikora and you can see on their 10/26/2019 edit that they have made edits to the article at Sikora's request. Vegantics (talk) 14:31, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Maximilian Janisch
This is a BLP on a Swiss prodigy for which there is an article on the German Wikipedia, Maximilian Janisch. An English Wikipedia account,, uploaded a translated version of the German article to Maximilian Janisch, which I tagged for COI. The account owner has openly identified themselves as the BLP subject on their talk page. On the article talk page, they have proposed a 7-day discussion period after which they will remove the COI notice. I have brought it here as I don't think many editors will see the English article. I do notice that a similar named account has edited the German article. Aszx5000 (talk) 10:26, 25 June 2024 (UTC)


 * For the record I will put some more background information here:
 * The article was tagged by User:Aszx5000 within WP:NPP, after it was created through translation of the German article by me.
 * I have added a COI box to my user page and the article talk page (in the latter I provide evidence that I am the subject of the article).
 * More information and the steps I suggested to alleviate the issue of me being a COI editor can be found at the article talk page.
 * --Maximilian Janisch (talk) 10:57, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Grüezi . I don't know how it is on dewiki, but enwiki policy strongly discourages autobiographies like this one. It's good that you disclosed your COI, but you seem to have overlooked the other parts of that guideline: that you should only propose new articles for review via AfC, and once the article is in mainspace you should not edit it directly. You note on the article talk page that conflict of interest editing is discouraged but not forbidden, which is true, but "not forbidden" does not mean optional here; it means that you should follow the guideline in most circumstances, even though there are sometimes exceptions. Those exceptions are when it's in Wikipedia's interest to ignore the rule, and that doesn't appear to be the case here. I have nominated the article for deletion and suggest you don't engage with it further. You are welcome to edit other topics. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 11:13, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the useful information While you are right that the path to creation for this article was inappropriate due to mistakes on my part, I have nonetheless argued for why I believe deletion is not the right response over at the article deletion page. I agree that the article creation process is unfortunate but I still believe the decision of whether the article is deleted should be based on the article itself and associated guidelines, not the process through which it was created. In any case I will make sure to be more careful with COI editing in the future and I apologize for this inconvenience caused by me not having proposed the article via WP:AfC. --Maximilian Janisch (talk) 11:21, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Pedestrian69
Almost all of this user's contributions through their entire history here have involved promoting Arie and Elise Trouw, including by adding Elise to multiple lists of "Notable" people.

Most recently, the user created the Arie Trouw article for a second time after it was deleted previously, and the article (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arie_Trouw&oldid=1229987095) was an embarrassing fluff piece that primarily cited Arie's personal website, claimed that him having a musician for a daughter "adds a unique aspect to his public persona", and included meaningless marketing fluff about his work "aiming to integrate physical and digital worlds through blockchain technology". Re-deletion is currently proposed - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Arie_Trouw_(2nd_nomination).

I do not know precisely who this user is, but in my opinion it is obvious from their behaviour alone that they have some personal connection to the Trouw family and are editing for the purpose of promoting Arie and Elise, not for the purpose of improving Wikipedia.

Users have, on multiple occasions, raised COI concerns on the user's talk page. The user has never engaged with those discussions.

I'm not sure what appropriate next steps are, but given that engaging via Talk page has failed repeatedly over multiple years, I figured I should bring this to this Noticeboard for others to discuss. ExplodingCabbage (talk) 20:35, 21 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I just blocked Pedestrian69 for continuing to edit on his apparently conflicted topic past the UPE warning without giving a notice either way. Hopefully this will at least get their attention - David Gerard (talk) 08:50, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Debra Fischer


Continued editing of an article that shares their username after being warned about a potential COI violation yesterday. Jdcomix (talk) 22:39, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Emmanuel Samba Zumakpeh
Editor adding unsourced material to this BLP. Editor commented on my Talk page ... I am currently in touch with him ... Editor has continued to edit the article despite CoI warning. Tacyarg (talk) 16:55, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

User:Dssep


Could someone please look into the activities of this newbie ? They're bypassing the formal AFC review process by moving drafts into the main NS. Specifically, they have moved drafts such as Draft:Umro Ayyar - A New Beginning (Diff ~1231533766) and Draft:Jaan Say Pyara Juni (Diff ~1231434817). Additionally, they seem to be associated with another new account with fewer than 1000 edits, likely acting as a meat puppet to assist in these moves such as Kabhi Main Kabhi Tum (Diff ~1231301770). This page was created by @Dssep. Furthermore, they are removing WP:UPE tags from these pages, which is concerning. I've advised them against this behavior, but they continue to do so. Some of these drafts were created or heavily edited by WP:UPE sock farms, suggesting a strong possibility that @Dssep, may be a paid editor, too. If moving drafts to the main NS without proper review becomes commonplace, it undermines the purpose of WP:AFC. This is not the first instance of such behavior from new accounts, but I felt it is now necessary to report it here. — Saqib  ( talk  I  contribs ) 06:44, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * As I Remove the Multiple issues template in Kabhi Main Kabhi Tum because the The Express Tribune, Dawn (newspaper), ARY News, Dunya News, Aaj News, The Indian Express and the many more references are Reliable as their articles are also on Wikipedia. None of these are not the Paid websites as they are internationally recognized News Websites. Another thing is that the article is not Paid with no promotional words or the article is written. The article is also notable as The Fahad Mustafa, Hania Aamir, Emmad Irfani, Javed Sheikh, Bushra Ansari are the leading actors on domestic and International level. The series is not yet released so it is a stub article also as i Add the stub template and the article is improving as the new News arrives. Also You mention me here, I'm not a Paid editor. The article is written in Neutral Point of View. Other Administrators can Check the article that it is a Piad Contributions ? If there are any issues discussed on the Article Talk page.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dssep (talk • contribs) 07:51, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Despite this report, @Dssep, continues to move drafts to the main NS and engage in page move war. draftified the article but then reverted it back. Similarly, they redirecting declined drafts such as Draft:UmroAyyar A New Beginning (Diff 1231670989) and Draft:Umro Ayyar - A New Beginning (Diff 1231671391). This behavior resembles what Nauman335 sock farm typically does. —  Saqib  ( talk  I  contribs ) 16:41, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Dssep is ✅ to Nauman335. Hypothetically007 is technically as they are using a proxy, but exhibits a technical signature matching data reported in this case in the past. Since they are very obviously working together, both are blocked indefinitely. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:53, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Ivanvector, Thanks, but if they were not blocked for socking, would this editing behavior alone be enough to get them blocked? — Saqib  ( talk  I  contribs ) 06:29, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * well, they are blocked for socking, but if you're referring to the behaviour of persistently moving draftified articles back to mainspace, I've been told through a few different approaches that it isn't, for reasons essentially boiling down to encouraging bold editing and assuming good faith. Consensus seems to be that if you draftify an article and the author moves it back without making any improvements, send the article to AFD. And if it's a new editor with an article on one of these Hum TV or Geo TV or ARY Digital television shows, report them in the Nauman335 case, it's nearly 100% at this point. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 12:30, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Miguel A. Martínez
User Autodesplanifica contributions is a single purpose account which created a promotional account for a borderline notable academic. Back in April, I deleted the puff and queried whether there was a COI, which seems blatant to me. The user replied that there was not and accused me of vandalism (also by email). Over the weekend they returned to add more uncited promotional material and added a photo. I'd be grateful if somebody could take a look, thanks. Mujinga (talk) 17:48, 24 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Hmm thanks to @Melcous for querying a few things. I'm not convinced by Autodesplanifica's answer "I just like his work, which I find notable" since Miguel A. Martínez's website links to his twitter which is ... Autodesplan. What a coincidence! Mujinga (talk) 13:30, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Draft:Centre for Voters Initiative & Action (CVIA)


This is a blatent COI article, and this user has already been banned from editing an article created on him. OnlyNanotalk 21:53, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Marco Camisani Calzolari
One of the creators of this new BLP (which I tagged while patrolling) has helpfully declared that they are a paid editor. Am I right in assuming that such an article should be moved to WP:AFC? thanks. Aszx5000 (talk) 08:51, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

University of Rhode Island College of Pharmacy


Username walks the line of WP:UAA. Editor appears to be slowly turning the article into an advert for the college. Warned about COI, continued editing with no communication. 2A00:23C5:50E8:EE01:7DCA:43EC:BDAF:A739 (talk) 16:52, 28 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I've soft blocked the username - it's not specific to an individual, student worker is a role. Secretlondon (talk) 12:38, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

What You Wish For


User has continued disruptive editing on an article that they have a conflict of interest on, despite being warned multiple times. Jdcomix (talk) 16:19, 29 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Please read the talk page on the page, everything is laid out there. BlairThimper73 (talk) 16:41, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * (AFC reviewer and involved editor) @BlairThimper73 despite being warned for your interest, you kept asking proof of COI, while I placed the COI tag with proof. All the time you never tried to understand what is Conflict of Interest. Editor Jdcomix brought the issue here after seeing the page history and the talk page. Twinkle1990 (talk) 14:34, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry but I don't see any COI. What is COI on the page as it stands currently? There is none. The page has almost zero contribution from me now, and what I did initially contribute was just inforamtion. But like I have said, the COI will stand because you want it to. This is not my problem, it is a public resource, not a private forum for your opinion. BlairThimper73 (talk) 00:35, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @BlairThimper73 this is Wikipedia, not your film. Your above statement is inability to understand what is being said and against good behaviour. You seem to be a single purpose account to create or edit your films only. Twinkle1990 (talk) 14:54, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Vitaliy Khomutynnik


Vitaliy Khomutynnik's article has attracted COI/UPEs in the past to white wash his biography and they were blocked for violations. Now, a user with just 298 edits (User:Jenes) has whitewashed the article again from this to this. One of the sock even disclosed the payment status. Can we investigate/revert this obvious sock? More eyes the better. 86.97.145.183 (talk) 21:40, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the opportunity to discuss the edit on Vitaliy Khomutynnik's page in a wider field than the discussion page. The first thing I want to pay attention to is that the main language section for me is Ukrainian. I have less experience in editing English section because of my not quite perfect English.
 * Therefore, I don’t edit separate sections, but update (create) pages that I wrote (or substantially revised) in the Ukrainian section. This is exactly the situation with the Khomutynnik’s page. Before my edition this page looked like a list of separate facts and I built a structured text from these facts and wrote an article.
 * How does the user’s edit look like? Rearrangement of text blocks (of course this is a matter of taste, but why it was necessary to do it in a newly rewritten article?) and addition of facts that do not stand the test of time, and which, according to this logic, were removed from the updated version. It is about the Inauguration of Donald Trump, which took place in 2017.
 * If Bexaendos user considers this fact significant for the biography, then perhaps it would be worthwhile to start a separate section with a list of all the protocol events in which Khomutynnik participated. Or, at least, he should also edit the corresponding Inauguration of Donald Trump article and start with the formation of a complete list of the participants of the ceremony (if the editors consider the addition of such names appropriate). Jenes (talk) 08:03, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Zang Toi


User has edited an article that is apparently about themself despite a prior warning about a potential conflict of interest. Jdcomix (talk) 15:28, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

UPE - Message from Simple English Wiki


I received a message on my talk page on Simple English Wikipedia which led to this discussion also on Simple English Wikipedia about user Nuel Jr. Copying information here for those interested and notified the person who pinged me to email evidence to paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org. CNMall41 (talk) 21:11, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I received a similar ping. I usually don't respond to off-wiki material like that, but the link is 100% compelling and I've disabled the Nuel Jr account. I don't really want to fall afoul of our limitations on outing, so I'll avoid linking to anything. Sam Kuru (talk) 04:49, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I had that thought too which is why I told the user to email the appropriate people. Thanks for checking into it. --CNMall41 (talk) 05:34, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for taking care of this. I have requested a revision deletion per WP:OUTING (though I am not familiar with their local policies) and reverted the obvious paid edits by the user in question. However, further review is needed to identify any additional spam. GSS &#x202F;&#128172; 06:25, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Without having seen any external evidence, I was considering blocking the account as a spam account. It has an extensive history of blatantly promotional editing, so much so that It's remarkable that he's got away with it for so long. JBW (talk) 08:13, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Nine pages created by this editor have been deleted as promotional, by various administrators. Others probably should be deleted. JBW (talk) 10:13, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

I have now checked the editor's page creations, and deleted two more of them as promotional. There is one more draft, which in my opinion is promotional-ish, but not enough to justify speedy deletion. JBW (talk) 10:28, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you, that was much needed. From their off-wiki profile, it looks like they were also hired to create draft:Vijay Kumbhar, which they got undeleted through WP:RFU. The draft is a complete mess and should be deleted too, imo. Also, their need a review since they’ve flooded it with citations from YouTube videos and other poor sources. GSS &#x202F;&#128172; 14:15, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes. Thank you for pointing Draft:Vijay Kumbhar out; I've deleted that too. Nuel Jr was effectively responsible for the existence of that article, but since his name didn't show as the creator of the page I missed it first time. I don't have time now to check Alec Torelli, but you may like to see if there's any reverting you would like to do. JBW (talk) 15:41, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

User talk:Uma' Anũpa'

 * User talk:Uma' Anũpa'

I am member of the Houma Language Project. We are a volunteer-led group of community members and linguists passionately focused on the reclamation and reconstruction of the Indigenous Houma language which was spoken in south Louisiana. In addition, we focus on cultural activities and archival documentation of the history of the Houma people and language.

As a result of our work and our expertise, we have noticed a myriad of pages on Wikipedia relating to Indigenous peoples of Louisiana, especially the Houma, that do not reflect existing published resources and lack substantive and in some cases accurate information. To remedy this, I volunteered to create a Wikipedia account on behalf of the project in early June. I made an error in that I created the account for use by the Houma Language Project team as a group, which I now understand to be in violation of Wikipedia's account policy. This has been rectified in that now I will be using the account as an individual, and the username has been changed to reflect this. However, I have received confusing and unsubstantiated mandates from several editors to not edit pages directly but instead to post edit requests (please see the User talk page). It has not explained why this would constitute a COI under Wikipedia guidelines but has instead placed the onus on me to seek an explanation for an arbitrarily dictated ruleset not clearly outlined (to the best of my knowledge) under Wikipedia's own terms.

Houma Language Project is neither a for-profit business, an incorporated non-profit, nor a tribe-affiliated entity at the time of writing. We are a group of individuals who have decided to dedicate our time to work together on the language. No one is an employee of the Houma Language Project, and as such, there is no possibility of payment in exchange for editing on Wikipedia. In addition, the COI guidelines were clearly written to avoid self-promotion and the entangelement of financial and business relationships with editing on Wikipedia. It has not been demonstrated to me how the editing of pages about the language and the Houma people, rather than, for example, a page about the Houma Language Project itself, while operating under Wikipedia's terms (such as using neutral language and acceptable references) coincides with any of these conflicts and constitutes promotion or advocacy of a particular point-of-view.

- User:Uma' Anũpa' (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 20:23, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Marathon Asset Management


This user has been adding advertising (or at least very spammy Title Case Industry Jargon) to this article. No communication; reversal is met with instant reversion. Coming here to avoid 3RR issues. 81.187.192.168 (talk) 20:34, 2 July 2024 (UTC)


 * I will note that the user has not edited since they were warned about our undisclosed paid editing policy. None of the user's contributions remain in the article. Please ping me if the user edits again, or if there is any additional sort of promotional fluff coming from new accounts to that article. — Red-tailed hawk  (nest) 03:15, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * appeared yesterday making the same edits, but got squashed by Cluebot. Just FYI at this point. 81.187.192.168 (talk) 12:26, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm going to semi-protect the page for a month to see if that calms things down. — Red-tailed hawk  (nest) 21:50, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Alexander Borodich


The latest undeclared paid editor on this article appears to have a single goal – removal of the UPE template at the top. It was removed without comment by them as their first ever edit, and removed again without comment as their second. They then made a series of very minor edits culminating with the removal of the template again. Once more (wrongly, I should've come here at this point, I put my hands up to it) it was removed this time saying that their small changes of capitalisation and word order meant that the UPE tag no longer applied, and again with the same reasoning.

I'm done here, as I should've been about 4 edits on the article ago, but would like others to take a look if possible. 81.187.192.168 (talk) 11:54, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Blocked as a sock. -- Euryalus (talk) 12:04, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Back as . Just reverted again. 2A00:23C5:50E8:EE01:4087:A0C5:26D7:210A (talk) 23:22, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

John B. Goddard School of Business & Economics


I came across an interesting situation and wanted to make sure this doesn't represent an unusual variation on a paid COI. See the talk page for for details. In short, they are a student at the school and are unpaid but acting under the direction of the dean's office. I asked them to follow the unpaid COI rules but may be mistaken. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 23:25, 7 July 2024 (UTC)


 * My understanding, based on the Paid-contribution disclosure page, is that if they are directed or expected to edit Wikipedia as part of an internship, they must disclose. But this doesn't look like an internship in the traditional sense; these sorts of volunteer groups can almost function as pseudo-student clubs. There might be perks (such as bowling or escape room trips), but I'm a bit hesitant to label it as compensation for purposes of our policy—I'd struggle to see how it is different than a professor who is running a WikiEd class that happens to have dinner at his/her home one night or hosts a catered classroom edit-a-thon.
 * That being said, it's obviously a conflict-of-interest if the individual is acting on behalf of the school itself (or on behalf of a student group whose raison d'être is to promote the school), and you are correct to insist that the user follow the ordinary WP:COI rules and avoid claiming ownership of the page. If the editing pattern becomes overtly promotional, we would treat them no differently than any other sort of editor who is acting in an overtly promotional way. — Red-tailed hawk  (nest) 02:12, 8 July 2024 (UTC)