Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard

"WP:COIN" redirects here. For the WikiProject on articles about coins, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Numismatics.

Welcome to Conflict of interest Noticeboard (COIN)
Sections older than 14 days archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. (For help, see Wikipedia:Purge) This Conflict of interest/Noticeboard (COIN) page is for determining whether a specific editor has a conflict of interest (COI) for a specific article and whether an edit by a COIN-declared COI editor meets a requirement of the Conflict of Interest guideline. A conflict of interest may occur when an editor has a close personal or business connection with article topics. Post here if you are concerned that an editor has a COI, and is using Wikipedia to promote their own interests at the expense of neutrality. For content disputes, try proposing changes at the article talk page first and otherwise follow the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution procedural policy.
You must notify any editor who is the subject of a discussion. You may use {{subst:coin-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.
Additional notes: This page should only be used when ordinary talk page discussion has been attempted and failed to resolve the issue, such as when an editor has repeatedly added problematic material over an extended period. Do not post personal information about other editors here without their permission. Non-public evidence of a conflict of interest can be emailed to paid-en-wpwikipedia.org for review by a functionary. If in doubt, you can contact an individual functionary or the Arbitration Committee privately for advice. The COI guideline does not absolutely prohibit people with a connection to a subject from editing articles on that subject. Editors who have such a connection can still comply with the COI guideline by discussing proposed article changes first, or by making uncontroversial edits. COI allegations should not be used as a "trump card" in disputes over article content. However, paid editing without disclosure is prohibited. Consider using the template series {{Uw-paid1}} through {{Uw-paid4}}. Your report or advice request regarding COI incidents should include diff links and focus on one or more items in the COI guideline. In response, COIN may determine whether a specific editor has a COI for a specific article. There are three possible outcomes to your COIN request: 1. COIN consensus determines that an editor has a COI for a specific article. In response, the relevant article talk pages may be tagged with {{Connected contributor}}, the article page may be tagged with {{COI}}, and/or the user may be warned via {{subst:uw-coi|Article}}. 2. COIN consensus determines that an editor does not have a COI for a specific article. In response, editors should refrain from further accusing that editor of having a conflict of interest. Feel free to repost at COIN if additional COI evidence comes to light that was not previously addressed. 3. There is no COIN consensus. Here, Lowercase sigmabot III will automatically archive the thread when it is older than 14 days. Once COIN declares that an editor has a COI for a specific article, COIN (or a variety of other noticeboards) may be used to determine whether an edit by a COIN-declared COI editor meets a requirement of the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest guideline.
To begin a new discussion, enter the name of the relevant article below:

Search the COI noticeboard archives

Help answer requested edits

Category:Wikipedia conflict of interest edit requests is where COI editors have placed the {{edit COI}} template: Wikipedia conflict of interest edit requests Talk:James F. Allen (businessman) Talk:American Council on Education Talk:American Water Works Talk:Anaxam Talk:Florence Ashley Talk:Astex Pharmaceuticals Talk:Roy Bahat Talk:Bastion (agency) Talk:Marc Benioff Talk:Breyers Talk:Brookfield Properties Talk:Burford Capital Talk:Mike Cannon-Brookes Talk:Sukhinder Singh Cassidy Talk:Sonia Chang-Díaz Talk:Change Healthcare Talk:Character.ai Talk:Chime (company) Talk:Sujit Choudhry Talk:Citadel Securities Talk:Civic Hall at Union Square Talk:Slaid Cleaves Talk:Cohen Milstein Talk:Aaron Cohen-Gadol Talk:Community-engaged research Talk:Dahua Technology Talk:Louis DeJoy Talk:Paul Devlin (filmmaker) Talk:Daniel Diermeier Talk:DISA (company) Talk:Dixy Chicken Talk:Ed Dodds Talk:Double Union Talk:Earth Journalism Network Talk:Mary Baker Eddy Talk:Ex Libris Group Talk:Far East Organization Talk:Scott Farquhar Talk:Fastly Talk:Anne Finucane Talk:Florida Power & Light Talk:Bryan Fogel Talk:Forecasting Love and Weather Talk:John Freund (business executive) Talk:Bradley Fried Talk:Geena Davis Institute on Gender in Media Talk:Geotab Talk:Kellie Gerardi Talk:GetYourGuide Talk:GLX Digital Talk:GoDigital Media Group Talk:Colin Goldberg Talk:Grail (company) Talk:Steven Grinspoon Talk:Grove Collaborative Talk:Shashi Gupta Talk:H.B. Fuller Talk:Holly Ham Talk:Henley & Partners Talk:Heterodox Academy Talk:Eric Hippeau Talk:Human Appeal Talk:Index Ventures Talk:Industrious Talk:Infillion Talk:Institutional Venture Partners Talk:International Churches of Christ Talk:Orit Ishay Talk:Sultan Al Jaber Talk:Simcha Jacobovici Talk:Valerie Jarrett Talk:Edward D. "Ted" Jones Talk:Jeffrey Katzenberg Talk:King the Land Talk:A. Gary Klesch Talk:Chris Kubecka Talk:Karl Lagerfeld Talk:LD (cigarette) Talk:Dion Lee Talk:Dafna Lemish Talk:Library of Congress Subject Headings Talk:Robert Luciano Talk:Geoffrey von Maltzahn Talk:Masdar Talk:McCain Institute Talk:Media.Monks Talk:Metlifecare Talk:Christos Metskas Talk:MoneyWeek Talk:MP Materials Talk:Netvibes Talk:Neuroscience Research Australia Talk:NextEra Energy Talk:Nondestructive Evaluation 4.0 Talk:Oasis Management Talk:OneHope Talk:Oregon Public Broadcasting Talk:OUTtv (Canadian TV channel) Talk:Dana G. Peleg Talk:Gregory Pence Talk:Perkins Eastman Talk:Pershing Square Capital Management Talk:Pink Ribbon (snooker) Talk:Matthew Pittinsky Talk:Profire Energy Talk:Pure Storage Talk:Quantitative storytelling Talk:Shlomo Rakib Talk:Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Partnership Talk:Revel Transit Talk:Revolut Talk:Eric Rubin Talk:Roland Rudd Talk:Jay Ruderman Talk:Rick Sanchez (journalist) Talk:Scandia (theme parks) Talk:Stephen Schlesinger Talk:Schott AG Talk:Science Inc. Talk:Milton Shedd Talk:Site Number 4 Mnt 85 Talk:Dragan Šolak (businessman) Talk:SolidWorks Talk:SoundExchange Talk:South Fort Myers High School Talk:Space Capital Talk:Spotfire Talk:Squishmallows Talk:A. G. Sulzberger Talk:Sysco Talk:TaskUs Talk:Tenants and Owners Development Corporation Talk:Tencent Talk:The Red Sleeve Talk:Theatre Development Fund Talk:Topps Talk:Traton Talk:Jean-Pascal Tricoire Talk:Edward Trobaugh Talk:Maria-Ana Tupan Talk:UK Biobank Talk:Carla Ulbrich Talk:United Launch Alliance Talk:United States Postal Service Talk:UnitedHealth Group Talk:Bulat Utemuratov Talk:Veris Residential Talk:Versapay Talk:Terry Wahls Talk:Dashun Wang Talk:Washington University Medical Center Talk:Joey Wat Talk:Mark Weisbrot Talk:Wikimedian of the Year Talk:Xavier University Talk:Sam Yagan Talk:Yelp Talk:Zero-day vulnerability Talk:Zions Bancorporation

COI edits by User:Jonmsweeney

• Jonmsweeney (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Jon M. Sweeney (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

It appears that Jonmsweeney has been editing in violation of the clear conflict of interest for many years. If they are not Jon M. Sweeney then they should probably be blocked for using that person's name as their username. If they are Jon Sweeney or closely connected to him then have edited in violation of that conflict of interest many, many times despite being warned several times on their User Talk page. Examples of edits that appear to be problematic include:

• Adding Jon M. Sweeney to the "Notable alumni" section of Wheaton College (Illinois)
• Adding their name to Phyllis Tickle (as the author of a biography about Tickle)
• Adding their name and publication to Paul Sabatier (theologian)
• Adding their name and a center they directed to Sacred Heart School of Theology
• Editing the article about Jon M. Sweeney

These edits have been occurring since 2017. They did pause for about two years but they began again today. These edits are not acceptable and they must cease, one way or another. ElKevbo (talk) 19:24, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

The CoI edits to the Jon M. Sweeney seem to be particularly problematic. That article reads like a self-published fluff piece. Of their other edits, most do appear to be self-promotional. I'm very concerned about the fact that they have clearly ignored the multiple TP notices regarding CoI. ButlerBlog (talk) 19:54, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

User blocked by Orange Mike for WP:USERNAME violation. Axad12 (talk) 15:53, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Just wondering if the article is a candidate for AfD? Axad12 (talk) 12:31, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

He does have a significant body of work. Working to improve the article is almost always better than deletion. However... a review of the article's authorship seems to indicate the possibility of multiple accounts. It doesn't appear to be intentional sockpuppetry for deception and/or block evasion, but that does need to be looked into. I'm more concerned about the CoI and accounts than the article itself. ButlerBlog (talk) 13:02, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

I suppose the issue is whether you mean he has a 'significant body of work' in the sense used in point 3 of WP:AUTHOR, or if he has just written a lot of books. It looks to me rather like the latter.

The article has been significantly cropped of promo material since this thread was opened. All that is now left is mostly badly sourced and unsourced info written by the subject himself, followed by a very long list of his books, the purpose of which is itself promotional.

In the 8 years since this page was started, pretty much the only thing added by a non Sweeney-related account was a COI tag.

That's my take anyway... Axad12 (talk) 16:37, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

AfD nomination here: [1] Axad12 (talk) 06:59, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

COI user:Collegemeltdown2 with article Bryan Alexander (futurist)

• Bryan Alexander (futurist) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Collegemeltdown2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

On the public blog of Bryan Alexander, in the comment section of Alexander's post on on finally getting a Wikipedia article, user Collegemeltdown2 replies in the comment section with "you're welcome" and Alexander responds with "thank you". The user even provides a link in the comment to showcase his contributions to the article to Alexander. The fact that the two interact with each other outside Wikipedia and in such an informal way (e.g. going by first names), clearly shows a personal connection between the two. Source: https://bryanalexander.org/personal/i-now-have-a-wikipedia-entry/ . The article should either be deleted or a COI tag placed on the article and the user's userpage. 213.55.185.103 (talk) 08:10, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree that the apparent link between writer and subject is troubling.

A lot of the material in the article is unsourced, which is usually also a sign that it came straight from the subject and not from a WP:RS.

Do you feel that the article is a straightforward fail when it comes to passing WP:PROF? If so, an AfD will probably result in it being deleted and then the COI issue goes away.

It would be useful perhaps if Collegemeltdown2 was to give their version of events here and clarify their link to the subject of the article. Axad12 (talk) 14:14, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Hey @Axad12,

I was actually on the fence which is why I mentioned both, a COI tag or the article being deleted. You bringing up again the latter makes me actually lean towards it too. @Collegemeltdown2, per his editing history, seems to be quite active but hasn't yet reacted to this. You also seem to be keen an a response from him. A COI tag may perhaps not be the best way to get there. Rather it may encourage him to sit it out and live it down. An AfD and the jeopardy of the article getting deleted may rather be an incentive for him to react. 213.55.237.140 (talk) 20:45, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. However, I’ve added a COI tag to the article. I didn’t start an AfD because that isn’t a process I’m familiar with and I’m not sure if the article fails WP:PROF.

Melcous has removed a lot of material from the article and added tags noting the lack of citation in some areas. Axad12 (talk) 08:02, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

As noted at the very top of this page and again in the edit notice that is shown when you edit this page, you are required to notify an editor when you discuss them on this noticeboard. I will do it for you to ensure it happens but other editors should not have to do this for you. ElKevbo (talk) 17:24, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

@Axad12, @ElKevbo

Now, why doesn't this surprise me? Not the only COI of this user... has been implicated in past COI discussions too. Perhaps this COI case may be tight to the overarching COI of this user and that is a hate against private schools. This user has even ranted on Harvard's talk page, trying to link Harvard to land theft, slavery and genocide (see here [2] just to cite one instance). I mean, the user name CollegeMELTDOWN just "radiates" objectivity and impartiality... pinging @EEng who's been dealing with this user on Harvard's talk page. 2A02:1210:2C5A:AE00:D830:41A4:689B:2945 (talk) 18:58, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

EEng is currently blocked so cannot respond for the next several days. ElKevbo (talk) 19:09, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

This IP editor is here because of a content dispute at Bryant & Stratton College - I'll repeat some of what I told them there: Making personal attacks on CollegeMeltdown is not going to help you get the changes you would like made on that article, and is explicitly against policy (WP:NPA). Making edits you dislike, or having hate against private schools - even if that were true - would not be a COI. MrOllie (talk) 17:26, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

• As a claim of conflict, this seems particularly weak sauce. Being interested in someone or even a "fan" is not generally considered a conflict (we count on that for the generation of many. many bio pages.) If a fan sees someone they're a fan of posting about their page's creation on their blog and takes credit for it, (here's a link to archive of the conversation, which has since been deleted) that would hardly constitute a conflict, and responding to a fan using their first name is pretty standard in such interactions. It is not a sign that they had had any contact before, much less planned this in some way (otherwise, there might have been more specific credit in the original blog post.) -- Nat Gertler (talk) 17:43, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
• I have to say, the parallel between the username "Collegemeltdown" and the title of Bryan Alexander's book, Universities on Fire, is a bit too close for comfort. As far as Bryan Alexander goes, I'm struggling to see notability. Winning an award from an organization you helped found twenty years ago, and on whose board you still serve, is hardly notability material, nor are one-sentence mentions in blogs and opinion pieces. EEng 22:01, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

  Followup: There's a real smell of puffery and stretching of sources here. For example, the statement Alexander was one of the first experts to envision the peak in US higher education enrollment is cited to a source which reads, in its entirely on Alexander:

  One explanation for the situation in 2018 was Bryan Alexander's notion of "peaking." In other words, American higher education had peaked, after which colleges and universities experienced dissolution and slow decline by several crucial indices of institutional vitality.

  (a) There's nothing there about being "one of the first" and -- much more seriously -- (b), the source isn't even talking about enrollment, but a bunch of other stuff:

  matters of equity, access, affordibility, retention, degree completion, and social justice ... campus conflicts and controversies ... disillusionment with higher education ... colleges experienced a "tumble from grace" ...

  AFAICS, the word enrollment, or any synonyms for it, doesn't appear anywhere. And that's just the second sentence of the article. EEng 23:45, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

  "College Meltdown" can be found as a term used on a website (author someone besides Alexander) since at least 2016; Alexander's book, which is specifically in regard to the climate change (which Meltdown has no visible ties to), didn't come out until 2023. They may have similar terms, but that isn't much of a case for them being related. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 22:12, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

  I do believe you're correct, but you'll see why my Spidey Senses were set tingling. EEng 23:45, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

  True, but there's still the issue of notability. Perhaps its time for someone to open an AfD, especially if the use of sources is suspect (what sources there actually are)... Axad12 (talk) 03:15, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

User:DN27ND

• Nori Bunasawa (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• DN27ND (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The article Nori Bunasawa seems to have started out as draft created by 110347nbtough in November 2020, who subsequently seemed to claim they were Bunasawa himself over on Wikimedia Commons here and here. The draft was then approved by DN27ND about a month later, even though the DN27ND account was only four days old and seems to have no experience as an WP:AFC reviewer. Moreover, DN27ND is an WP:SPA whose primary focus on English Wikipedia, Wikimedia Commons and Japanese Wikipedia has been creating/editing content about Bunasawa; in other words, it seems that the account was specifically and only created for that purpose.

Since WP:COIEDIT states that someone with a conflict of interest "should not act as a reviewer of affected article(s) at AfC, new pages patrol or elsewhere", I asked DN27ND was about any connection they might have with Bunasawa at User talk:DN27ND#Nori Bunasawa and they replied they were just a fan who found Bunasawa interesting. However, after the article was nominated for deletion, DN27ND posted they and Bunsawa have a working relationship (as a reporter would on their subject) where I could reach out and obtain information. and that they sent Bunasawa a draft on the article as a courtesy, in order to have a working relationship with him for leads on additional sources and for information regarding judo sports figures of which there will be wiki articles published in the future.. When it was pointed out in the AfD by another user that one doesn't need to be being paid to have a conflict-of-interest per WP:EXTERNALREL and that even a WP:APPARENTCOI can possibly be problematic, DN27ND posted about how journalists typically have relationships with the subjects they write about and continued to argue there was no COI.

There's more posted in the AfD, but it's probably better at this point for other members of Wikipedia community to weigh in and assess whether the "working relationship" DN27ND describes having with Nori Bunasawa is would be considered a conflict-of-interest per WP:COI. If the consensus is that it's not, then I'll happily WP:DROPTHESTICK regarding it; if, on the other hand, the consensus is that it's a COI, then DN27ND should be advised to keep this in mind moving forward when editing/creating content about Bunasawa or about any others they might have similar relationships with. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:58, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Wow, the draft approval process was supremely suspicious. Shouldn't be ok. At the very least we should redraftify the article. I'd even advocate for deletion, seeing as the text was produced under such suspect conditions.

The defensiveness is also mildly concerning, although being fair people have defensive about even more trivial things. 104.232.119.107 (talk) 06:11, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

I wonder if a sockpuppet investigation may be in order re: one user approving the other's draft?

For two SPAs on this unusual subject to appear within a month of each other back in 2020 seems odd, as does the fact that the article creator's edits pretty much fizzle out shortly after the article approver's edits begin.

Looks to me as though the user does have a self-admitted COI.

They admit that they sent the subject a copy of the article. That seems very close to an admission that they are the individual who originally drafted this article. Or are they really suggesting that they did this as part of the process that led to them approving another users work?

They also admit to having some kind of ongoing relationship with the subject whereby they liaise with the subject on sources and the content of the article.

The standard COI tag says that "a major contributor to this article seems to have a close connection with its subject". It would be entirely appropriate to add that tag to this article. Axad12 (talk) 12:21, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

If, as stated by the OP here, the user who drafted the article (110347nbtough) has admitted to being Bunasawa himself, and the SPA editing patterns of the drafter (110347nbtough) and approver (DN27ND) seem to dovetail in terms of timeframe, what is the relationship between DN27ND and Bunasawa? Seems it may be closer than writer and subject... Axad12 (talk) 13:30, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

User DN27ND has now admitted here [3] that they wrote the article (which was then placed on Wikipedia by the subject) and then approved their own article. Axad12 (talk) 21:19, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

I just p-blocked them from the AfD. They remain welcome to contribute here or elsewhere, but I do see two sets of red flags, most problematically MEAT. Star Mississippi 02:11, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

The result of the AfD was delete [4].

For the sake of completeness, related sockpuppet investigation here [5]. Axad12 (talk) 18:49, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Jasper wildfire

• Jasper wildfire (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Yamla (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Self-reporting. I haven't edited Jasper wildfire but would like to. I was a tourist in Jasper at the time and was ordered to evacuate along with thousands of others. I believe this is not sufficient to mean I have a conflict of interest with regard to the article. I'm not (as far as I know) eligible for any insurance payout or government subsidy. Happy to answer any follow-up questions, just being extra careful to ensure I have no conflict of interest. Yamla (talk) 11:49, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

I hope your trip was not too badly ruined. I don't see any more of a problem with you editing the article than letting editors write about, say, places they have visited or live. In the exceedingly unlikely event that you, as a respected Admin, suddenly descend into unsourced editing, POV ranting, or OR it will be dealt with on those bases. Meters (talk) 17:51, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, Meters, I appreciate it. Of course, if I violate any policy when editing that article, I would expect to be called out for it. :) --Yamla (talk) 18:02, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm sure we can count on you to self-block if you fall into the "but I was there, so I know better" morass. Meters (talk) 21:13, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Fabio Mancini

• Article: Fabio Mancini (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Editor: Fabmac2024 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Editor: Shoshat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Editor: Sandrajean11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Fabio Mancini is likely editing himself, Fabmac2024 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), plus paying some UPEs now blocked i.e. Shoshat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Probably one of the worst UPE promo I have seen. Should be nuked, no notability. 5.195.238.186 (talk) 01:54, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

See discussion at Wikipedia:Teahouse#Wikipedia Page editing, updating and current removal of photos. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:14, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Also at Wikipedia:Help desk#Secure a "celebrity" super model page by yet a different editor that I have added to the above list. Shoshat is CU-confirmed as part of a very large pool at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sjutt, where Fabmac2024 is also listed and pending action. DMacks (talk) 16:55, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Halal Bae

• Halal Bae (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Hb231 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I was trying to help at Talk:Halal Bae (diff before discussion removed), but maybe someone else can take a look? --Another Believer _(Talk) 02:40, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

all the changes had the same sources and included that info so not really sure how this is competing with what was already there. If you take the time to read all the sources, all the changes made are included in it Hb231 (talk) 02:54, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Username changed to BurtonTK1981 and continued editing. Might need more help here. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:50, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

not really sure why help is needed here. all the edits made have the correct citing and is using the info provided. context has been added and some things removed to protect the persons privacy. BurtonTK1981 (talk) 17:19, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

@Another Believer if there is anything you are contesting, bring it up and it can be edited back. but you keep insisting you are trying to help, yet you arent doing anything to give more context or say why these edits arent in line BurtonTK1981 (talk) 17:20, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

if you look at the changes, you will see that it was removal of a few things, which I dont see how this is infringing on policies outlined. Everything else has been properly cited and is public. BurtonTK1981 (talk) 17:22, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Laureen Oliver

• Laureen Oliver (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Laureen1953 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Editor added unsourced statements which were not neutral in tone - Oliver's accomplishments were highly recognized across the country among all third parties - in June last year. I reverted and posted on the editor's Talk page about CoI, given the edit contents and the username. Editor edited the article again in March this year, and I asked them directly about CoI. Haven't had a response to either post. Editor has now edited the article again - diff - so bringing it here. Tacyarg (talk) 03:29, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. The material being added seems to bear a close resemblance to material [6] previously added by an SPA IP [7] back in 2015 (not the first SPA IP to have edited this article). Also concerning, the almost complete lack of sources in this article, first flagged as long ago as 2011.

Presumably the new user will be blocked for the username violation (at least). If they return with a policy compliant username they would be better off declaring a COI on their user page and suggesting sources for the existing material on the article talk page, rather than edit warring over the inclusion of further unsourced text. Some of the claims in the article ("was fundamentally responsible for" / "is widely recognised for") are presumably relatively straightforward to source if correct. Axad12 (talk) 04:27, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Hmm, yes. Only one good source in article (the other is not independent). I've searched and can't find more. Wondering about tagging for notability, but will leave it to those more familiar with notability of US politicians. Tacyarg (talk) 13:58, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

For those interested, AfD here [8]. Axad12 (talk) 11:16, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Jim Riswold

• Jim Riswold (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Zacharywatt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This editor is repeatedly replacing well-sourced content with unsourced promotional content, claiming to be made on behalf of the article's subject. Editor asserts that the replacement should not be censored in response to a COI notice. The IP 152.44.131.247 was recently blocked for making identical edits to that page, so the account seems to have been created to evade the block. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 07:09, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

The IP address stated "i am a colleague making [the edits] on his behalf"[9], so the nature of the COI is clear.

IP blocked by Isabelle Belato, page protection added to the article by EverGreenFir. Axad12 (talk) 07:29, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

I did some very minor cleanup, added a few citations, and added a {{COI edit notice}} template to the article talk page. For reference, there's some more sources about Riswold's advertising career available online, but most are behind paywalls that I can't access. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:17, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

St. John Vianney High School (Kirkwood, Missouri)

• St. John Vianney High School (Kirkwood, Missouri) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 97.84.38.162 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The IP is registered to the school so nobody from that IP should be editing the article directly.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 20:06, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

You might want to read our CoI policy (and likewise our FAQ for article subjects), which says no such thing. While some of the edits were unacceptable, others, such as correcting misspelled surnames of BLPs, are perfectly fine. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:23, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

idaho freedom caucus

• Idaho Freedom Caucus (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Nash990 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Urgent: Violation of Wikipedia's Paid-Contributor and Conflict of Interest Policies by User: Nash990

Dear Wikipedia Administrators,

I am reaching out to report a serious concern regarding user Nash990, who appears to be in violation of Wikipedia's Conflict of Interest and Paid-Contribution Disclosure policies. Evidence suggests that this user has been hired by a political activist to manipulate the content on the "Idaho Freedom Caucus" page, potentially compromising the neutrality and integrity of the encyclopedia.

Such actions not only undermine the trustworthiness of Wikipedia but also directly contravene the guidelines designed to uphold editorial integrity.

Given the potential implications of these violations, I urge a prompt review and appropriate action to address this issue and uphold Wikipedia's standards.

Thank you for your commitment to maintaining the accuracy and neutrality of Wikipedia.InfoScribe247 (talk) 16:32, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

I see that your own account name started off as "Idahofreedom", which suggests the possibility of a conflict of interest of your own. I realize that doesn't mean you do have one, or that your complaint here isn't legitimate. Largoplazo (talk) 16:53, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Poor name choice/rectified. InfoScribe247 (talk) 19:16, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Well... you also have a (possibly financial) conflict of interest with Idaho Freedom Caucus that you haven't disclosed. Your "side" isn't inherently right or wrong. C F A 💬 17:54, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

How'd you come to that conclusion? InfoScribe247 (talk) 19:17, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

... Your previous username. C F A 💬 19:26, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Maybe jumping to conlcusions based on a username is not good practice, lol. So, you just threw out an accusation with zero evidence? InfoScribe247 (talk) 16:02, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Well, my evidence is your username. And in my opinion that is very solid evidence. You are also a single-purpose account and with edit summaries like Corrected hostile edits, I would be very, very surprised if you did not have a conflict of interest. C F A 💬 16:09, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

User:Integrity208 also used the edit summary "Corrected hostile edits", which, along with the possible coincidence but possibly not of the user names starting with "I" and ending in three digits, leads me to entertain the possibility that they're the same person as InfoScribe247. Largoplazo (talk) 16:49, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Lol 184.155.201.47 (talk) 16:56, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Largoplazo, I had literally just arrived at the same conclusion and was about to post the same comment. There is also, of course, the fact that Integrity208 seems to have the same editing agenda as InfoScribe247.

Meanwhile, the laughing IP address above has made several edits to the same page.

I agree with you that there are plausible concerns about sock puppetry here.

It seems that there is some off-wiki dispute which is being manifested on the Wikipedia article. I must admit I'm none the wiser on who is right or wrong (in terms of the factual material in the edits).

Since the article is apparently only borderline notable I have to wonder if it would be better if it was just deleted, after which the warring elements can take their dispute elsewhere. Axad12 (talk) 17:11, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

I filed an SPI at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Integrity208. I'm considering taking the article to AfD because most coverage is routine and not significant. C F A 💬 17:12, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

you guys have wives or...? InfoScribe247 (talk) 17:19, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Oh my god: You're JD Vance! Largoplazo (talk) 18:12, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

CFA, well done re: the SPI.

Please do take it to AfD.

The alternative would presumably be to take the various warring editors to ANI and try to get them blocked for WP:BATTLEGROUND. That may actually be the quickest way to get this sorted, and then page protection if they return via block evasion.

Infoscribe, it has to be said, is doing himself no favours with recent comments, plus previous groundless aspersions of UPE, plus edit warring, possible sockpuppetry, etc. Axad12 (talk) 17:23, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

AfD is probably the right place, not seeing the sort of coverage I would expect from a notable topic... Probably best covered at Political party strength in Idaho because thats what all the coverage is primarily about. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:36, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Nash990 was paid by a political activist with a massive conflict of interest to edit the Idaho Freedom Caucus page. I was not. InfoScribe247 (talk) 19:19, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

How'd you come to that conclusion? C F A 💬 19:26, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

I know the guy who hired Nash990 to sabotage the page, he readily admfitted it and I have the screenshot. InfoScribe247 (talk) 16:03, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

... which implies you have a COI. How else would you "know the guy"? C F A 💬 16:11, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Infoscribe247, Integrity208 and IP address all now blocked as sockpuppets. SPI here [10].

AfD for Idaho Freedom Caucus here. [11]. Axad12 (talk) 08:05, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Potential UPE and socking

• Draft:K. Donnell Smith (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Draft:Pink Zebra Moving (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Draft:Al-Fatin bin Hussein Al-Badad (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Utaq (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Fibi762 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Alfateen Bin Hussein Albaddad (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Accounts Utaq and Fibi762 were the only contributors to drafts Draft:K. Donnell Smith and Draft:Pink Zebra Moving, suggesting the accounts are the same person, although they have both created several other drafts. The drafts are about a wide variety of obscure people and businesses, for which generally there are few or no independent reliable sources, which suggests possible UPE. Worth noting that Utaq has denied that they are a UPE.

Additionally, User:Alfateen Bin Hussein Albaddad tried to create userpages about himself and his brother Zayed on Simple English Wikipedia (see userpage and filter log), but they were deleted on August 1 as advertising. One day later, Fibi762 attempted to create articles about Al-Fatin bin Hussein Al-Badad and his brother on both the English and Arabic Wikipedias. (see filter log on the Arabic Wikipedia account. Only the entry Draft:Al-Fatin bin Hussein Al-Badad, which was originally created as an article, has not been deleted.) Helpful Raccoon (talk) 17:41, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

@Helpful Raccoon see WP:Sockpuppet investigations/EuphonyRandolph and please add anything additional there. This is a UPE sock farm. If they are doing things on Simple please report it there and refer to this glock request by a Simple admin. S0091 (talk) 17:53, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Interesting. I don't think User:Alfateen Bin Hussein Albaddad is part of the sock farm though. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 17:59, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree, they probably are not a sock but the client. S0091 (talk) 19:09, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

User:HardTimez4000 and Pasha Patriki

• Pasha Patriki (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• PurpleDOG Post Production (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• HardTimez4000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

HardTimez4000 seems to be solely interested in highlighting Pasha Patriki, the films he helped produce, and his companies PurpleDOG Post Production and Hangar 18 Media. They claim on their talk page to have no connection to Patriki. HardTimez4000 isn't making any edits that are obviously promotional, and it's hard to distinguish a non-COI single-purpose account from a COI, but their editing pattern makes me suspect a COI. Their very first edit was to (correctly) remove negative information from Pasha Patriki. The page PurpleDOG Post Production that they created states that they sponsored several film events, and this can probably be confirmed, but some of the cited sources don't even mention the company. They're also adding his company to films it was involved in. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 01:14, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

My understanding is that anything I am citing is mentioning the subject of whatever the article in question is about, I am 99.9% sure I did not miss anything and cited a website that is irrelevant. If so, please mention the specific reference here. I am a new user and I started with a topic/area that I am familiar with - which I understand looks like "sole purpose". The goal is to expand to other areas! HardTimez4000 (talk) 01:59, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I was wrong about the sources not mentioning PurpleDOG. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 02:10, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

It looked like you know a lot of specific information, such as which events were sponsored by PurpleDOG Post Production, that is unusual to add if you have no connection to the company. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 02:30, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

I created a page about a company that has been in the industry for 14 years - which is why I thought it is worth mentioning. I searched the web for any mentions of the company, and the sponsorship and one specific film restoration project is all I could find and could cite, this is why the articles contains this information. It may seem very specific, but that is ALL of the public verifiable info available. It has nothing to do with me having this specific knowledge. HardTimez4000 (talk) 02:40, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

I think it is logical that I edited an Article, and then that lead me to see inconsistencies in another article that is linked to the first article, and then the chain continues. At this point I am certainly not just editing articles that mention Pasha Patriki :) HardTimez4000 (talk) 02:01, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

With regard to the user's first edit having been to "(correctly) remove negative information", I'm not sure I see the problem. The material that was removed was sourced to "Pashapatrikiranoveraguy.com", presumably an attack site. Any good faith user who saw such material would have removed it as a violation of WP:BLP.

It is, I accept, rather odd that an apparent WP:SPA emerged just two weeks after that material was first added to the article, but I'm sure that a lot of editors will have started their activity here by seeing incorrect info, opening an account and removing it. Indeed, in many cases such an edit would be the only edit they ever make, leaving the appearance of having been an SPA.

I don't see anything else to worry about re: the user's other edits to that article.

To be honest, the element of this user's edits that makes me wonder about anything potentially unusual is the setting up of two completely new articles on their first day of contributing material to Wikipedia. But that would hardly be the first time that had happened... Axad12 (talk) 04:52, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Their explanations for their editing seem reasonable, and I should not have been so quick to judge. What worried me was their pattern of crediting Patriki in a variety of articles plus expanding material related to him, but there's nothing inherently bad or unusual about this. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 06:43, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

2024 Sri Lankan presidential election

• 2024 Sri Lankan presidential election (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Oshalah (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user seems to be connected to one of the minor candidates in the race, Oshala Herath. Account was created in 2009. He doesn't do much except make edits to the article to add more information about himself and put more emphasis onto his candidacy. Nevertheless, this would be a violation of WP:ADVOCACY. Not Wlwtn (talk) 08:22, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Certainly seems to be some form of COI there.

However, with regard to the difference between (a) "seems to be connected to one of the minor candidates" and (b) "he doesn't do much except [...] add[ing] information about himself", please take note of WP:OUTING. Axad12 (talk) 09:23, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

I am afraid, when candidate's name is Oshala Herath and the username in question is Oshalah, I don't think it is much of an outing to be honest. Chanaka L (talk) 10:37, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

It's hardly unknown for individuals with a COI related to a subject to use usernames related to the subject in some way. Even when usernames exactly replicate those of a subject it may be an attempt at impersonation. Hence "seems to be connected to" was sufficient. Ultimately, whether the end user is the subject, or just someone with a close connection to the subject, is irrelevant in terms of what action will end up being taken. The issue is the effect of the edits and whether there is a plausible COI, not the exact identity of the user. Axad12 (talk) 10:47, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

In regards to personal information, the most he has added is his age and past records. Not Wlwtn (talk) 11:16, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

My post above was a request that you stop claiming that the editor is the subject, not a request for the personal information that the editor has posted about the subject. Axad12 (talk) 11:26, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

The COI user continues to edit the 2024 election page and there seems to be some back and forth editing with another editor on whether Herath's photo should be in the info box or not.

Given that he's failed to respond to COI notes on his talk page, or to make any comment here, might some action be taken to prevent further editing?

Not sure if this would best be achieved by blocking the account or by protecting the pages concerned. Any thoughts?

(The election is due to take place on 21st Sept, so it's probably fair to say that the disruption will continue for some time unless it is prevented.) Axad12 (talk) 14:36, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

I guess taking some action would be best. Perhaps we could prevent the account from making edits to the article until September 21st. Or something else if that might be too drastic. Not Wlwtn (talk) 15:51, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

I've asked the user at their talk page to stop editing the pages concerned until they have responded to the conflict of interest concerns. If that doesn't do any good then it's possible this may have to end up at WP:ANI unless an administrator intervenes beforehand. Alternatively WP:RPPI is the place for page protection. Axad12 (talk) 16:02, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Not Wlwtn (talk) 16:09, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

There are no minor and major candidates in a elections race, specially a presidential election. there may be rich and poor but not minor and major. the results will define that. Every candidate should have equal rights to and presence any forum. Oshala Herath equally qualified as any other candiate who is being nominated. Oshalah (talk) 18:35, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Could you please clarify the nature of any connection you may have to Oshala Herath? Axad12 (talk) 18:37, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

An update: user Oshalah was blocked for username violation, then changed username to CitizenLK and declared a COI as a volunteer working for the candidate. The user's userpage [12] appears to me to be in violation of policy as it is being used to host material that had previously been deleted as "unambiguous advertising" when the article for Oshala Herath was previously deleted.

Prior to the renaming of the account the user had mentioned on his talk page the possibility of paying somebody to write and install an article on Oshala Herath (he actually asked me to do it, but I of course declined!).

Apparently not coincidental to this, yesterday a new SPA, user:Janakaraja appeared, immediately created a draft article for Oshala Herath [13], denied being a sockpuppet here [14] in language appearing to closely resemble ChatGPT or similar, and began directly editing the 2024 Sri Lankan presidential election article. Oshalah/CitizenLK has also continued to edit the article, despite having promised not to do so on at least one occasion, and has added a further photo of Herath to the article after uploading it to Commons as "own work".

While user Oshalah has declared that he is a volunteer working for Oshala Herath in the 2024 election, I would note that he was using this username 15 year ago.

Can I suggest that some form of action is taken in relation to what is clearly COI editing and plausibly also UPE.

Copying in user:331dot who authorised the username change. Axad12 (talk) 19:02, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

I highly doubt that user Oshalah creating an account in 2009 with that exact username was a coincidence. Regardless, I do hope some action is taken against this user, this is starting to become quite a nuisance. Not Wlwtn (talk) 19:42, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Looking at your comments it appears that you are being nuisance. When you stated discriminating candidates saying major and minor, it was obvious you are the one being bias. I feel you have a COI towards some candidate who is thrented by Oshala entering the elections. CitizenLK (talk) 01:12, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

I have been editing Wikipedia for 2 years now and I can confidently say that I am not working for any of the presidential candidates. Also, Wikipedia is not a place for personal attacks. Not Wlwtn (talk) 03:58, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

May be you are one of those people who work for hourly payments on places like fiverr.. That could be the reason your work is random for either to make entry or demote others

My case I have clearly declared my COI. NOW I am very cautious about my entries which only carry information and relevant references that anyone can verify. Even the images copyright have been relased by the owner as per wikipedia norms.

What I wrote on my page is so that anyone intrested can easily grab and verify the relevent information so they could do their own entry. First of all the person I support may be minor according to your discrimination but he is not rich like the people who may be paying to hound on him. Guidelines on Wikipedia is for a purpose that is to make sure articles are not bias in nature or advertising. So I make sure that interest is safeguarded in my entries. First find a single entry I have done which is false and then point finger.. CitizenLK (talk) 05:05, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

CitizenLK, I would suggest that you do as follows:

Delete the promotional material from your userpage. Userpages should not be employed to host that sort of material.

Instruct your associate Janakaraja to declare their conflict of interest on their own userpage, as you have correctly done yourself, and to stop using ChatGPT (or similar).

Tread very carefully in terms of editing the election page (which I note is an article that you promised to stop editing on your talk page 3 days ago, but subsequently returned to editing).

Also, stop making allegations that anyone is a paid editor.

I don't believe that you are in a position to throw stones in relation to any COI that others may have - but throwing stones is contrary to Wikipedia policy in any case.

The broader issue in this thread is not in relation to whether information is correct, but whether it has been added with promotional intent by individuals with a conflict of interest.

You have already been blocked once. If you continue to refuse to abide by Wikipedia policy it would be a very simple matter for you to be blocked again. Axad12 (talk) 05:27, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

@CitizenLK, Saying "you are one of those people who work for hourly payments on places like fiverr" is clearly a personal attack. Please stop making such claims immediately! You declared your COI after a several editors coerce you to reveal the truth. It is only your behaviour is questionable here. Chanaka L (talk) 05:28, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

I'd assume that the user's recent return to this thread is an attempt to deflect interest away from the coincidence between the facts that...

(a) his 2009 edits under previous username Oshalah were all on the article for the Institute of Technical Studies (e.g. [15])

and...

(b) the Oshala Herath draft article [16] created by user Janakaraja records that Oshala Herath "worked as a consultant at the Institute of Technological Studies from 2009 to 2012". Axad12 (talk) 10:42, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Interesting indeed. There are far too many coincidences for them to just be "coincidences" at this point. Not Wlwtn (talk) 12:59, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Also, with regard to the ChatGPT issue, Janakaraja's responses here [17] and here [18] on the SPI discussion both score 100% AI generated when put through https://gptzero.me. Axad12 (talk) 15:21, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Hello,

User Janakaraja is not my associate. So I am not in a position to instruct him. You all have to deal with him separately. Even though I edited the Election page it is not with promotional meterial. I have done so to update the image and sort the copyright issue ONLY. No more details to be added to that page as long as the basic information is kept without being deleted. If someone falsely accuse me I will have reasonable doubt as to why, and that is not throwing stones. I have no intension to purposely violate guidelines or community standars of Wikipedia. I am new and I am learning on the go. I apologize for any inconvenience I had caused any other user. I didn't intentional make any disruptive editing. It happend I didn't knew how to do. I may still make mistakes as I am still learning. I apologize for it in advance. Thank you.. And I will edit my user page as you have suggested. CitizenLK (talk) 17:01, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Visa requirements for Dominica citizens

• Visa requirements for Dominica citizens (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• The RIF Group (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User with the username which clearly suggests a link to a new company dealing with passport and immigration issues, trying to plant links for their company website. Single purpose account. Twofortnights (talk) 11:21, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Given that their edit says "the Dominican passport [is] one of the top 100 in the world [...] according to the RIF Trust Passport Index", I wonder if we should anticipate another 99 similar spammy edits? Axad12 (talk) 11:39, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Just a brief note to say that when posting a new topic here you should always notify the user on their talk page using the template shown in red at the top of the noticeboard. I have done this for you on this occasion. Axad12 (talk) 15:49, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

This should be at WP:UAA for a simple username/ spam block. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:18, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Indef blocked at UAA. -- Alexf^(talk) 18:56, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Stefan Zrinzo Azzopardi

• Stefan Zrinzo Azzopardi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Salmal30 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Would be grateful if someone could have a look at this one. Editor twice added unsourced information to the BLP Stefan Zrinzo Azzopardi, and removed references. I reverted and asked them not to do this. They said all changes are confirmed and requested by Stefan Zrinzo Azzopardi himself. I posted to their Talk page about conflict of interest. They said no connection, this is just a required update due to recent developments. I responded that that does not fit with their earlier comment. They have replied in the sense that they can be found on his website so they are requested by himself if they were implemented there. They have added back the changes to the article, with some references, albeit not strong - one is an article by Azzopardi, another is a Google search, and some information is still unsourced. Tacyarg (talk) 17:33, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

I should have made it clear that two of the three responses on the user's Talk page are from an IP editor, comments 1 and 3 quoted above; I think this is the same person, just not logged in. Tacyarg (talk) 17:39, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Well, the "in the sense" response is patent nonsense. DoubleCross (‡) 17:43, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

If an SPA says that the edits were "confirmed and requested by [the subject] himself" then, as far as I'm concerned, that confirms the COI.

If he later tries to row back from that position... too late, cat's out of the bag. Axad12 (talk) 17:53, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Further examination shows that the article was originally written by a now-blocked user called ZrinzoAzzopardi, so I've added a COI tag to the top of the article.

Significant parts of the article seem to be in need of sourcing or removal. Axad12 (talk) 18:07, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

User Salmal30 has also uploaded a photo of the subject at Commons, stating it is "own work" [19]. Not sure how that squares with the protestations of "no connection" and "no conflict of interest" but perhaps Salmal30 could clarify for us? Axad12 (talk) 18:22, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Something odd about those IP addresses. One relates to Utrecht in the Netherlands, the other to Sliema in Malta, but the edits are less than an hour apart. So, two different individuals apparently speaking on behalf of the account holder? Shared account? Axad12 (talk) 18:44, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, I didn't spot either the username of the original creator, or the "own work" tag on the image. Glad to have the "nonsense" confirmed, I was doubting myself. Tacyarg (talk) 18:55, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

I've just been googling recent news stories in relation to the subject, looking for possible sources for the article and trying to establish to what extent the user's reverted edits were written from a neutral point of view.

The subject seems to have encountered a lot of negative press coverage around Feb/Mar this year in what appears to have been a major story in Maltese politics. The events in question weren’t mentioned in the user’s substantial edits, even though those edits were intended as an update on recent developments. I was left with the impression that although the edits were essentially factual, the omission indicated that they were not neutral.

Seems to me that this is a promotional only account and there are plausible concerns in relation to WP:UPE. Axad12 (talk) 04:56, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

I have replied to your post on the article talk page, explaining why a {{CoI}} tag is not justified. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:12, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Noted.

Any thoughts on any possible action to be taken against the recent SPA? Axad12 (talk) 18:28, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

They haven't edited for three days; so nothing, unless that changes. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:30, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Jake Braun

• Jake Braun (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 97.119.137.18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This article was tagged with Wikipedia:Autobiography because of extensive edits by the subject. The subject attempted to remove the tag and had their account blocked indefinitely. See the COI noticeboard discussion at Cambridge Global and Jake Braun and the user discussion at User_talk:Spartaneditor. An IP address user has again attempted to remove the tag.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.15.211.66 (talk) 00:52, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

(Copied from talk page as a malformed SPE request. I take no position on the validity of the complaint or how to resolve it.) —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 19:23, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

The previous situation was 4 years ago, so it's perhaps difficult to demonstrate a link. However, there seems to be a history of COI editing at the page since then by various red line SPAs. It seems odd for an IP address to add some biographical info and then remove the autobiography tag as their first 2 edits.

I've reverted the edits, replaced the tag and added a COI notice on the IP's talk page.

If they persist maybe go to WP:RPPI and request page protection. Axad12 (talk) 20:20, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Articles related to Khanna family and clan

Articles

• Khanna (clan) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) #2 contributor by edit count
• Khanna family (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Creator, contributed 99.8% of article
• Aditya Khanna (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Creator, contributed 97% of article
• Arvind Khanna (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) contributed 87.4% of article
• Navin Khanna (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Creator, contributed 99.8% of article
• Shanti Lal Khanna (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Creator, contributed 99.5% of article
• Vinod Khanna (businessman) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Creator, contributed 99.2% of article
• Vipin Khanna (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) contributed 95% of article

• Ala Singh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) contributed 84.7% of article
• Amarinder Singh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) #2 contributor by edit count
• Bhupinder Singh of Patiala (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) contributed 60.2% of article
• Rai Sahib (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) #2 contributor by edit count
• Rajendra Narayan Singh Deo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) #2 contributor by edit count
• Randhir Singh (sports administrator) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) contributed 89.9% of article
• Romesh Bhandari (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) contributed 46.6% of article
• Yadavindra Singh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) contributed 37.4% of article

Editor

• Rvsingh12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Related discussion

• User_talk:Rvsingh12#Query_about_your_relationship_with_Khanna_family

Rvsingh12, from their very first edits, has extensively edited articles related to the Khanna family/clan, and appears to have access to materials (especially images [20]) that indicate a relationship to members of the family.

Rvsingh12 has indicated they are concerned with their privacy. Is there a private means that they could use to explain their relation further, if necessary?

Regardless of the outcome here, the articles need major cleanup to meet content policies and guidelines. I've held off on looking closely and tagging them, but my impression is that at a minimum all the BLPs need trimming and removal of poor references. --Hipal (talk) 19:14, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

So, if I understand correctly from the talk page discussion, the user claims no conflict of interest and states that his independent wealth allows him to pursue interests such as... writing Wikipedia articles about many related individuals to whom he personally has no relation?

Normally it works the other way, i.e. an individual writes articles about lots of people and this provides the individual with independent wealth.

Are we sure we have this the right way around?

Also, I'm not sure why someone would need to clarify their situation in great detail in private if they had no connection whatsoever to the individuals in question. And if they had no COI, why would they be so against this being referred to COIN?

Maybe we'll get some clarity if we consider the edits themselves. I've not looked at the articles. In your opinion are they written from a neutral point of view or do they appear promotional? Axad12 (talk) 19:40, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

The articles are highly promotional, Navin Khanna (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) especially so. As I said, regardless of the outcome here, the articles need major cleanup. --Hipal (talk) 20:27, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Are the subjects actually notable? If not, AfD would avoid the need for laborious cleanup.

What this all resembles, of course, is a situation where there is a family historian who has created lot of articles for past and present members of his/her family. In those situations the likelihood is that the individual is either related to the family or is someone who is being paid by the family.

Obviously it is possible that neither of those situations are applicable here, but if the articles are highly promotional then the likelihood of that being the case would appear very low indeed.

Please proceed carefully here as we do not want there to be any WP:OUTING. Axad12 (talk) 20:42, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Tagged Navin Khanna for AfD as clearly not notable. Haven't looked at the others yet. C F A 💬 03:16, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Georgina Long

• Georgina Long (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Wise owl 2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This editor says they are a member of Long's family. The CoI policy has been discussed with them on their Talk page and on the article's Talk page; they have responded but are continuing to edit the article. Tacyarg (talk) 20:31, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

I've reverted the recent edits, removed some material that was previous declined to be included in a 2021 edit request, and removed the exceptionally long and promotional list of awards. It seems there has been a very long and inglorious history of blatant COI editing on this article (including promo and repeated copyvio) dating back 4 years and involving at least 4 different red line WP:SPAs (one of whom was blocked from editing).

I think at this point it would be expedient for user:Wise owl 2 to clarify their connection to user:Sitalia1990, who has also recently edited this article with an apparently similar agenda. Axad12 (talk) 21:25, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Many thanks axad12. Learning the ropes in the Wikipedia edit space. Thanks again for informing me about how to declare a conflict and am working my way through the process. After reviewing chat page, sitalia1990 has presented herself as A connected person to Long. Defining my attempt to fill knowledge gaps as an agenda, perhaps I am confused about Wikipedia being a site for comprehensive verifiable information about a subject. Wise owl 2 (talk) 22:27, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

User:Mammadli99

• Zaur Darabzada (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Mehrali Gasimov (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Draft:Rauf Kingsley (musician) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Mammadli99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The user Mammadli99 is engaged in undisclosed paid editing. It should be noted that, as a result of research conducted on azwiki, it has been revealed that this user is a puppet account of User:Memoli13, who is globally blocked due to undisclosed paid editing, and Mammadli99 is also blocked locally. All of the user Mammadli99's edits are related to articles that were previously targeted by globally blocked users engaged in undisclosed paid editing. He has worked on 3 articles:

1. Zaur Darabzada – This article was deleted on azwiki in 2020. "MrTaghizade" applied for the restoration of this article, which was not restored. Shortly after, the article was recreated on enwiki under the name "Zaur Darabzadeh" by MrTaghizade and a second request for restoration was made on azwiki, which was also not accepted. Later, "User:Onyeddi," who would be globally blocked due to undisclosed paid editing later, applied for restoration again but it was not accepted. Recently, the article has been recreated again by Mammadli99 with another name ("Zaur Darabzada") on enwiki. The style of the article also indicates it was created for promotional purposes. The account Memoli13, also created this article on Hungarian and Ukrainian (for twice: deleted once, then recreated) Wikipedia.
2. Mehrali Gasimov – This article was also created through paid editing in multiple languages. It was created on enwiki by User:KhosrovAO, who is one of the accounts of Elshadiman, who is globally blocked due to undisclosed paid editing, then deleted, and later recreated in other 8 language sections (3 of these were deleted) by User:Mirola9, another confirmed and blocked sockpuppet of the same globally blocked user. Recently, this article was created on enwiki by Mammadli99. And the account "Memoli13" created this article on Macedonian Wikipedia (deleted), and edited it in Hungarian, Turkish, and Ukrainian Wikipedia.
3. Rauf (Kiglsey) – Created on enviki and later moved to draft status. This article was also created on Russian and Crimean Tatar Wikipedia, but it was deleted.
4. And also, Mammadli99 uploaded the photo of Farhad Garashov, whose article also has been target of paid ediiting by Elsahdiman's accounts in several language sections.

Besides these articles, the user's contributions have been limited to minor edits. All of these articles have been created through paid editing before in multiple language sections and are linked to users who have been globally blocked due to UPE. This account might be used to recreate these articles after the other users being blocked. Or it is just a account of another user who also have interests with these articles. It should be noted that the user's engagement in paid editing was previously suspected by the enwiki community, and they had been warned. Sura Shukurlu (talk) 16:59, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Jim Gamble

• Jim Gamble (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 194.75.232.178 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 78.147.162.98 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Not entirely sure what's going on here, and could use others' eyes. IP editor has several times over the last couple of years added content to Jim Gamble which is poorly-sourced - search results, external links in the body of the article, primary sources, YouTube. Most recent edit today calls Gamble by his first name a couple of times and has removed CoI template. I asked the editor in October whether they have a COI, but didn't get an answer. Not sure whether this is someone with a CoI, or an uninvolved editor struggling to understand what sources are reliable. Tacyarg (talk) 10:03, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi Tacyarg. I've reverted the recent edit (including replacing the templates) and requested long-term page protection against editing by IP addresses (here [21]).

Looks like there is a very large amount of self-serving promo fluff to be removed. Will you do the honours or shall I? Axad12 (talk) 12:00, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I've removed the majority of the 2nd half of the article. It mostly consisted of nonsense such as (a) an extended self-justificatory quote, (b) nonsense like why he thought he didn't get a job, (c) the fact that he had joined a political party, and (d) an excuse to link to imdb. Axad12 (talk) 12:32, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

COI editing on this page seems to have had a long history, via various SPAs (or similar) working on the article. In more recent times COI editing in 2020 and 2022 originated from user:Hannahpaul42 who was blocked in Sept 22 for being a promo only account. Similar promo edits followed in Nov 22. From May 2023 onwards SPA/promo/COI editing has occurred via the IP address mentioned above, who has also spammed images of Jim Gamble (and wikilinks) onto the articles of various better known individuals, e.g. [22], [23], [24], [25] and [26] Axad12 (talk) 13:13, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

One of the spammed images was previously added to the Jim Gamble article by the Hannahpaul42 account (here [27]), so I think we can plausibly assume block evasion. There is also off-wiki evidence suggesting some form of link between the blocked account and the subject. Axad12 (talk) 13:48, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

12 months "pending changes protection" now applied following RPPI request, diff here [28].

That ought to resolve the issue. Axad12 (talk) 14:37, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Many thanks, Axad12. That looks much better. Tacyarg (talk) 17:37, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Robert S. Tucker

• Robert S. Tucker (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 69.193.178.106 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

A reporter at Crain's New York Business posted on X today that the Wikipedia page for Robert S. Tucker, the newly appointed Commissioner of the FDNY, was "significantly expanded a few years ago by an IP address affiliated with his company, T&M Resources." Photo evidence is provided in this tweet: https://x.com/nick_garber/status/1823002404289142909

The company article probably fails GNG as well.BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 11:50, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

IP has not edited since January 2021. The article has been heavily edited since then. A COI notice was left on the IP's talk page... yesterday. What do you expect to achieve here? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:02, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Flagging it here got eyes on the article, which resulted in a lot of the recent cleanup (including mine), so worth doing. IP COI notice probably won't do any good. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 17:15, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Since I noted the apparent COI, about a dozen edits have been made to the page that have made it more neutral, and, most critically, a COI tag was added. (Additionally, your edits to the T&M Protection Resources page were helpful.) If I did not follow proper COI reporting protocol, please let me know how I should escalate next time. I'm always trying to improve and learn from the community. Zxm92 (talk) 20:25, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, at the time you made your original post about 90% of the article text had been added by just 4 single purpose accounts devoted solely to editing that article (and perhaps also editing the article for T&M, I forget). That presumably explains why the content was as it was. Axad12 (talk) 20:36, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Committee for a Workers' International (2019)

• Committee for a Workers' International (2019) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Jamesation (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

An individual is removing sourced information (information sourced to the organisation the article is about) and has asserted that he is a member of the organisation (" I am a member of the International,")][29] and said in the same edit note: "Like I said before it isn't your International and you have free to say anything you want about us but not on our personal page." His edit note for an earlier edit asserted " stop making our International look like we're an awful association"[30] Hence, a classic example of Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest#COI_editing and WP:OWN . Wellington Bay (talk) 23:44, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

User:Exerciser87

• Khashayar Farzam (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Exerciser87 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I believe that user:Exerciser87 is Khashayar Farzam or at least has some close connection with him. The users on contributions have been to the page Khashayar Farzam or Khashayar Farzam to lists. Examples: Ontario Tech University (Special:Permalink/1216287003), Pickering High School, Ajax (Special:Permalink/1190314500), Ajax, Ontario, (Special:Permalink/1186661997) and others that you can see at Special:Contributions/Exerciser87. He also updates the article Khashayar Farzam every time a new article gets written about him resulting in each claim having a rediculous amount of citations (which I recently fixed but you can see the old version here). The article Khashayar Farzam was nominated to be deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Khashayar Farzam and multiple sockpuppet accounts were used to vote which could also be user:Exerciser87. CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 07:32, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

If this went back to AfD, would you anticipate the result being the same? (i.e. the decision to delete, not the sockpuppetry). Axad12 (talk) 08:39, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't know enough about the policies for BLP and notability requirements to make any strong opinions, but based on what I have read about WP:GNG, I would think the result would be different just because there has been more coverage on Khashayar Farzam since the original AfD happened in 2017. But again, I'm not super knowledgeable on the notability guidelines or the AfD process. CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 13:02, 14 August 2024 (UTC)