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.
When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. 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:Roberta Olson Talk:Dan Abrams Talk:Joanne Scott Talk:Academy of Achievement Talk:Bill Ackman Talk:Advans Talk:AGCO Talk:American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers Talk:Anaxam Talk:Andersen Global Talk:Andersen Tax Talk:Arizona State University Talk:Armada Music Talk:Aspen Dental Talk:Atlantic Union Bank Talk:Avient Corporation Talk:Greg Barker, Baron Barker of Battle Talk:Neil Barofsky Talk:BEE Japan Talk:BlackRock Talk:Bobbie (company) Talk:Kenneth Braithwaite Talk:Edouard Bugnion Talk:Amanda Burden Talk:Burnet Institute Talk:C3 Presents Talk:Camurus Talk:Charles Martin Castleman Talk:Celebrity branding Talk:Chagee Talk:Charlesbank Capital Partners Talk:Brian Chesky Talk:Pamela Chesters Talk:Children's Hospital of Philadelphia Talk:CivicPlus Talk:Claremont McKenna College Talk:Cloudinary Talk:Cognita Talk:Commvault Talk:Consolidated Contractors Company Talk:The Culinary Institute of America Talk:Deirdre Curtin Talk:Dell Technologies Talk:Glenn Dubin Talk:Ducera Partners Talk:ECOWAS Bank for Investment and Development Talk:EF Education First Talk:Emily Carr University of Art and Design Talk:Joel Engardio Talk:Esmée Fairbairn Foundation Talk:Ankit Fadia Talk:Florida Power & Light Talk:Adele Fornarino Talk:Foster and Partners Talk:Francisco Partners Talk:Freudenberg Group Talk:Joan Gabel Talk:Gardenista Talk:Gartner Talk:Gebr. Heinemann Talk:Getronics Talk:Dan Gilbert Talk:Girl Scouts of the USA Talk:GoDaddy Talk:Matthias Goldmann Talk:John Goldwyn Talk:Grail (company) Talk:Martin Green (musician) Talk:Steven Grinspoon Talk:Group-IB Talk:Gene Hallman Talk:Holly Ham Talk:Hilary Harkness Talk:Stephen L. Hauser Talk:Hearst Communications Talk:Henley & Partners Talk:Hg (equity firm) Talk:HITRUST Talk:HSBC Insurance (Asia Pacific) Talk:IDEX Corporation Talk:Illinois Tool Works Talk:Informal learning Talk:International Institute for Strategic Studies Talk:Internationella Engelska Skolan Talk:Italian American Museum of Los Angeles Talk:Juvenile Diabetes Cure Alliance Talk:Jonathan Kellerman Talk:Mark Kendall (filmmaker) Talk:Michael David Kirchmann Talk:Klick (company) Talk:Elizabeth Koch (publisher) Talk:Tom Krause (business executive) Talk:Scott Kurashige Talk:Andrew Lack (executive) Talk:LastPass Talk:Kewsong Lee Talk:Lee H. Letts Talk:Gigi Levy-Weiss Talk:Jon Levy (behaviorist) Talk:Kiat Lim Talk:Lone Star Funds Talk:Los Angeles Jewish Health Talk:Anne Sofie Madsen Talk:Robert A. Mandell Talk:Mayfield (company) Talk:Alexa Meade Talk:Michael Medline Talk:Medvivo Talk:Metro AG Talk:Mitre Corporation Talk:Modern Meadow Talk:Mohamed bin Zayed University of Artificial Intelligence Talk:Farah Mohamed Talk:MongoDB Inc. Talk:Moroccanoil Talk:National Democratic Alliance (Armenia) Talk:NextEra Energy Talk:NextEra Energy Partners Talk:Lucian Niemeyer Talk:David Nirenberg Talk:Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation Talk:Randy Olson Talk:Olympia Fields Country Club Talk:Optum Talk:Oregon Public Broadcasting Talk:Ornge Talk:Nicolas Petit (academic) Talk:John Phelan (businessman) Talk:Plagiarism Talk:Polkadot (blockchain platform) Talk:QuinStreet Talk:RA Capital Management Talk:Rackspace Technology Talk:Prabhakar Raghavan Talk:Erik Ramanathan Talk:Remodelista Talk:Rocket Mortgage Talk:Eric Rubin Talk:Michael Savage (politician) Talk:Secureworks Talk:Sidley Austin Talk:SolidWorks Talk:Sonesta International Hotels Talk:Sophia Genetics Talk:Vladimir Stolyarenko Talk:Substack Talk:Tencent Talk:Tencent Cloud Talk:The Times Talk:Theatre Development Fund Talk:TKTS Talk:Transnational Association of Christian Colleges and Schools Talk:Trendyol Talk:Trócaire Talk:Lorraine Twohill Talk:UC San Diego School of Medicine Talk:United States Postal Service Talk:Hans Vestberg Talk:Mariano Vivanco Talk:Petar Volgin Talk:Dashun Wang Talk:Kathy Warden Talk:Tetsuro Watsuji Talk:Stanley Weiser Talk:WikiHow Talk:Alex Wright (author) Talk:Xero (company) Talk:Yahoo Finance Talk:Zerodur Talk:Zions Bancorporation

Meteomatics

Here's the filled template:

Meteomatics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Lukasjmueller (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The article for Meteomatics was created and primarily edited by a user that seems to work at the company in question. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.55.160.87 (talk • contribs) 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Cannabis spam

I would like to ask for a second opinion on User talk:Mgmgrand420. Is it spam? And is User:Mgmgrand420, which states "We review [products]" a self admission of WP:PAID advocacy? ☆ Bri (talk) 06:04, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Spam? Probably. Not sure whether here or UAA is the better forum, given the username, but something is both rotten and slightly stale in the state of Denmark. The user has not made any edits on ENWP since January 15. As for the PAID question, I don't think there's a clear piece of evidence that the account's controller is being paid for the reviewing by the people producing the product, but I would consider the userpage evidence that the account is a shared account. Hamtechperson 15:12, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

I blocked them as Not Here, and deleted the spam. Secretlondon (talk) 17:01, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. ☆ Bri (talk) 02:36, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

Michel Cadotte

• Michel Cadotte (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• CycoMa2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This is honestly a self report.

I recently had a [discussion with a more experienced editor].

I’ll go more in depth with each reply.CycoMa2 (talk) 02:32, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Look y’all I understand y’all have more important stuff to take care of and I am concerned I am wasting my time but can y’all please say something.

I desperately need someone to say something. I seriously don’t know what to do.CycoMa2 (talk) 10:49, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

@CycoMa2: I have read the discussion you linked, you want to know if writing about a possible relative from two hundred years ago is against WP:COI rules. I would say it isn't against the rules, but would advise being careful to follow policies such as neutrality and using reliable sources. Also, improve the article gradually rather than replacing the existing version with your own. TSventon (talk) 12:46, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

@TSventon Thank you for all that.

Here’s the thing it isn’t that it’s just one relative (or potential relative), I actually plan to write more articles on the relatives on Michel Cadotte. Many of these individuals appear to be notable enough and have been covered well enough by reliable sources too the point they warrant their own articles.

There are literally tons of reliable sources that talk about the genealogy of Michel Cadotte’s family.

But here is when the issue arises, there are reliable secondary sources who have addressed some relatives who have died in the 1930s and 1940s. I was born in the early 2000s, so obviously I never met them and don’t have much a connection to them. But my grandparents would have potentially have met them.

Just give me a chance to say a bit more. I have a bit more to say.CycoMa2 (talk) 13:53, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

@CycoMa2, on one hand, you think you can establish notability for some relatives of Cadotte; on the other hand, you're concerned that being a descendent yourself might interfere with your objectivity as an editor. So use WP:AFC to create any new articles for those relatives to ensure a good look by an uninvolved editor. As to your work on the Michel Cadotte article here, I think you're heading in the wrong direction. Detailed genealogical listings of two generations before Michel is not a good encyclopedic approach to an article about him. Schazjmd (talk) 14:10, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

@ SchazjmdHere’s the thing about this whole issue, my dad kept telling me for the majority of my life I have Native American blood. But as I grew older I began to doubt mainly due to situations like the whole Elizabeth Warren claiming native ancestry. You gotta keep in mind I am in my early twenties, I was literally a teenager when news about this happened.

You also gotta understand my dad never nor any of my relatives never gave context about this whole Native American ancestry. I have the skin of Snow White, how was a child supposed to believe he was not 100% European. Thank you for the advice on using AFC.

There is a reason I made the genealogical stuff with Cadotte that way. I sort of based it on the genealogy of Hatfield–McCoy Feud and the genealogy of William Whipple Warren.CycoMa2 (talk) 14:41, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

I have more to say trust me.CycoMa2 (talk) 15:54, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

@CycoMa2, I know, I read your original post to this board. It's clear that you've made a startling discovery about your ancestors and are trying to work through this new knowledge. Three experienced editors have responded on the COI question (counting your conversation with Mathglot); I'm not sure what more you expect or need from this board. Schazjmd (talk) 16:27, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

@Schazjmd you said it looks like I am heading in the wrong direction.

That wording right there makes me thing, you are accusing me of having a motive. I haven’t even fully explained how I am make these articles and I am not 100% sure how I am gonna update the article I am currently talking about.

I felt the need to come here because eventually y’all would find out about my potential connection to the subject and get the wrong idea then ban me.

I am aware not all of these relatives are notable enough for their own articles. I am not saying all of them deserve their own articles. Maybe an article for the Cadotte family would be a good idea, just like this article. Where this person has a section.

I don’t know fully know just yet, I haven’t read through all the books on the Cadottes or any other relatives just yet. Also there is still a part of me that’s still in denial that I am actually a Native American.CycoMa2 (talk) 16:37, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

And to be honest I feel like I need any kind of advice or any kind of information from y’all. Even if that means things I may not wanna hear. Just in case.

I am fully aware there is possibility other information out there I may not wanna see.CycoMa2 (talk) 16:51, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

@CycoMa2, my opinion about your draft work on Michel Cadotte's article has nothing to do with any motive and I'm not accusing you of anything. It was a simple observation that you added a lot of irrelevant genealogical content. It doesn't appear that my comments here are helping any so I won't be responding to this thread anymore. Schazjmd (talk) 16:52, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

@Schazjmd Oh sorry my mistake. Sorry about that misunderstanding.

Yes I know mentioning some individuals looks irrelevant. But I do this because I don’t know if these are gonna be relevant or not.

Like will this person pop up again in Michel’s life or not? I don’t know yet, I haven’t read through the whole thing yet.

Here is what the current article does:

1. The article on Michel Cadotte mentions that he is French-Canadian, Huron, and Ojibwe. Readers might be confused on how all that came into the mix.
2. The current version of the article doesn’t address why his surname varies. It doesn’t address why the names of his relatives vary either.
3. The article doesn’t mention all the things that happened in his life. For example, sources have addressed that he became poor close to his death and sources have addressed how he became an American citizen.

Reliable sources have addressed all the things I have listed. That’s all I currently know at the moment.CycoMa2 (talk) 17:24, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

I do wanna clarify this aspect, I do have ADHD. It appears my medication hasn’t fully kicked in yet.

So do forgive if I come off as annoying.CycoMa2 (talk) 17:26, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

I know some people are gonna bring up WP:CIR. I have knowledge in American history and my dad has a masters degree in history.

The issue is that my dad has a stronger connection to the subject than I am.CycoMa2 (talk) 17:39, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

The issue isn’t that’s it’s startling.

The issue is that I have completely forgotten this aspect of me because a series of complicated issues in my teenage years. I have only recently recovered from these issues.CycoMa2 (talk) 03:13, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

I looked into this because I was at a dinner party with friends and family. I noticed that me and my dad look completely different from all the most white men there.

My grandfather was clearly not a white guy and I met him. Yet I forgotten him entirely.

The truth is I love being a Native American, I am not ashamed of my ethnicity. No one should feel ashamed of their ethnicity.

I just don’t have many memories to related to this.CycoMa2 (talk) 03:36, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

I failed to mention this here, but I have said it in the talk page of my sandbox.

Some secondary sources have said that my dad’s grandmother is a descendant or has some connection to Michel Cadotte. Literally my last name is in one of these sources. My dad claims he has met this woman.

Not 100% sure about how reliable it is though. I haven’t read the whole book, because I don’t have access to it.

Just trying to give y’all as much information as I can.CycoMa2 (talk) 02:07, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

All I can say neither me, my dad, or any of my grandparents have a connection to this source.CycoMa2 (talk) 02:08, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Keeping y’all updated on notes and research in my sandbox.CycoMa2 (talk) 15:59, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

N. Katherine Hayles allegedly editing her own article for "security" reasons

• N. Katherine Hayles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Nkhayles (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The user is claiming to be the subject and asked if I could revert my revert of her edits as for her to update her work and for "security reasons". I told her no, but she reverted to her version anyway. Did I do the right thing? Should I change it back? Please see my talk page for evidence.Bender550 (talk) 21:17, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

The day and month of birth should be removed to hinder identity theft. The subject probably passes WP:Prof but the BLP is-over bloated with tendentious material and could be usefully shortened. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:49, 3 March 2025 (UTC).

Alright. I can remove the date but thats it. @Nkhayles do you approve Bender550 (talk) 21:56, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

OP has been sock blocked, for the record. jp×g🗯️ 11:31, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Technological Institute of the Philippines

• Technological Institute of the Philippines (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• TopOfTheWorld62 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 45.114.134.220 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Tip acct (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The registered editor, whose name is apparently inspired by a lyric from the school's fight song, We're on top of the world (link here), and the year the school was founded, 1962, appears to have a close connection to the school itself. A few days ago I made some copy edits and cleanup to the article to make it a bit more encyclopedic (diff) only for them to be reverted (diff), restoring mostly promotional content that have been directly lifted from the school's official website; much of it appears to have been copied directly from the site's History page. It's also worth noting that the editor was templated in their talk for using a name that tends to represent the school, and they may be using the linked IP account to make further COI edits. Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 12:57, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Update: I've added another userlink to a user whose name suggests a blatant close connection to the article's subject; I have reverted their edits in this diff. Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 12:55, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Moved from User talk:Tip acct

The changes we made reflect the most current updates about our institution. The updated information is based on actual facts, as the previous content is no longer applicable. 45.114.134.220 (talk) 02:09, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

@45.114.134.220: Your edits were reverted because they're promotional in tone, not supported with attribution to reliable, secondary sources, and done without proper disclosure of your involvement with the school. If editing the article is part of your job, you are required to disclose this per our terms of use; the practice of editing or creating articles about yourself, your family or friends, your organization, your clients, or your competitors is actually discouraged by Wikipedia. Kindly go to WP:DISCLOSE on how to disclose a general COI or WP:COIPAYDISCLOSE for a paid-contribution disclosure. Non compliance may result in you and your alternate accounts getting indefinitely blocked from editing in addition to sockpuppetry, which is the use of multiple Wikipedia accounts for malicious purposes. Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 05:51, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Connecticut College

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Connecticut College (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• JohnDNugent (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Since 2006, this editor has only edited articles about the college or related to it. Their username makes it clear that they are employed by the college (to avoid violating our policy I will refrain from posting the relevant evidence but any other editor can make the same connection quite easily). They have ignored clear, direct questions on their User Talk page about their connection to the college.

I do not necessarily object to their edits. I do object to them editing the article about their employer while also refusing to disclose their conflict of interest, in violation of our community norms and the project's terms of service. ElKevbo (talk) 23:06, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

The editor has now disclosed a financial COI on their talk and committed to using the requested edit template. I've added the connected contributor template on the article talk. I'd suggest closing or archiving if there aren't any issues with the edits themselves. Justiyaya 09:07, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Losing Earth

• Losing Earth (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 2601:58B:1200:BA50:107A:916:603F:2C39 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

An IP editor is repeatedly removing sourced information from sources that are critical of this book in any way, replacing it with blurbs from the publisher or other laudatory coverage. No response to talk page messages. Jfire (talk) 04:33, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

Shoukath

• Shoukath (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• NITHIN DAVIS (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user has repeatedly added unsourced content with a promotional tone to this BLP, and the image they have uploaded and added to the article is tagged "own work", which suggests they know Shoukath. I have asked the editor directly whether they have a CoI, and added the CoI template to their Talk page, but not had a response. Tacyarg (talk) 12:25, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

They look non-notable. Secretlondon (talk) 21:05, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

'Own work' could just mean they've nicked it from somewhere, as it's the default. We've had an article on this guy since 2014. Lots of different authors - maybe he's their guru? Secretlondon (talk) 21:20, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

It's a 200x200 image. If it was genuinely their own work they'd have a higher resolution. Secretlondon (talk) 21:28, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the image information. I see you have PRODed the article now. Tacyarg (talk) 08:51, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

Meghan Linsey

• Meghan Linsey (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• TheMeghanLinsey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The subject has started editing her own article, and has allegedly said to do this as to "update the photo", but she is trying to add new info herself as well, which goes against COI policy. Please see subject's contributions for evidence. Bender550 (talk) 16:39, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

OP blocked as a sock, reported account soft blocked to prevent impersonation, unsourced information removed from the BLP, image tagged for permission issues at Commons. Connected contributor tag removed, as all the account's edits were reverted. But, for future reference, when any account shows up and says "hey, this unsourced information about the subject isn't true", don't mindless!y revert them for COI reasons. Do a little legwork and investigate the claim. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 19:08, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Thos. Moser

• Thos. Moser (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Thos. Moser Cabinetmakers (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Juniper1972 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Self explanatory. Adding external links and promo. Catalyzzt (talk) 13:22, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Update: brand new account Juniper1972 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is making edits consistent with above, suspected sock. Catalyzzt (talk) 13:44, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Please notify the new account of this discussion. -- Pemilligan (talk) 17:19, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

The COI is clear in the first account, and the second account is clearly a sock of the first one (see SPI). I have warned them about paid editing policies. MarioGom (talk) 10:46, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

@Catalyzzt: As it says at the top of this page, when starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. You need to do so for User:Juniper1972. -- Pemilligan (talk) 12:40, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

COI editor engaging in edit war

• Mikael Kubista (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• ArtChomsky (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user consistently reverts information on the page of Mikael Kubista, which is supported by multiple independent sources, citing the reason of "poorly sourced" at their discretion. When I inquired on the article's talk page, they stated that "Mr. Batesko wants his name removed from mention." which can lead to the conclusion that this user has a close connection with the individual who wants the information removed. Furthermore, this user is a single-purpose account (SPA) whose contributions solely involve erasing information related to Mr. Batesko. Since the facts are backed by reliable references, as I noted on the talk page, I believe this editor, who shows clear signs of a conflict of interest, should be prevented from further disrupting the page. ManIxal (talk) 10:47, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

The reason for the action is because what's put there is wrong. Again, I ask. Do you ManIxal have some financial relationship with either Mikael Kubista or the Swedish Government, or both? I ask because of your actions in working to advance a coverup. For example: the lawsuit was referred to as a SLAPP lawsuit. But that form of lawsuit is applied in matters regarding those who protest building developments, and not this. You're continued allowance of that reference and claim are advancing fake news. My singular interest is in correcting this matter and stopping the corruption. Mikael Kubista is one of the original creators of the drug Omeprazole, which should clue you in as to his interests as well as those of his Swedish colleagues. Are you part of their group? Regardless, please leave that information out of Mikael Kubista's entry. Again, it's wrong. Thank you.ArtChomsky (talk) 16:52, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

I think I see the disconnect here. I will try to lay it out as I think resolving this confusion will help you two come to a resolution.

@ArtChomsky asserts that this source is biased in favor of Mikael Kubista (as it was allegedly written by someone affiliated with him). ArtChomsky argues that Mr. Batesko denies what Mr. Kubista says about him, and therefore it should not be included on the page, as it is essentially a “he said she said” situation. I believe in Swedish one would say “ord står mot ord”.

ArtChomsky’s explanation of this on the talk page was somewhat vague. It seems that @ManIxal interpreted this as an admission of a COI. After viewing the totality of this conversation, I think this is ultimately just a misunderstanding. ArtChomsky, I presume (and please correct me if I am wrong) that English is not your first language. This may explain why ManIxal misinterpreted your message. I would encourage both of you to assume good faith going forward.

I think both of you should lay out your evidence on the talk page for why the source is/isn’t reliable. Then, we can make a determination on whether that section should be included. Catalyzzt (talk) 06:09, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi Catalyzzt. I highly agree and thank you for being even-handed. I will embark on a comprehensive effort to demonstrate what I claim. Thank you. ArtChomsky (talk) 06:28, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Lots of problematic articles

A while ago I started digging into the history of a number of promotional articles created by SPAs, and it has led me down quite the rabbit hole. I've AfD'd and prodded the ones that were simple, but I've identified the following list of articles which have been edited or created by SPAs adding promotional content, which will not be as easy to deal with. All of them are connected in that I found each article one after another via looking through the contributions of connected accounts with very few edits. The more you dig in the page history and the contributions of these SPAs, the more problematic articles you find. This is beyond my capabilities at this point, and I don't particularly want to go on a sock hunt, so I figured I'd leave the list here so others can take a look.

• Mohamed bin Zayed University of Artificial Intelligence (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• King Abdullah University of Science and Technology (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Southern University of Science and Technology (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• General Entertainment Authority (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Eric Xing (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Priven Reddy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Jay Naidoo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Anand Naidoo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Beverley Naidoo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Ama Naidoo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Kessie Govender (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Michael Brady (biomedical engineer) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Ling Shao (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Jean Fréchet (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Awwad Alawwad (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Xue Qikun (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Riyadh Season (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Ararkis Sandstorm (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

MediaKyle (talk) 23:47, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

I looked over a few. Yes, they are promotional, and there are some SPA's involved. Can you be more specific? I don't see what links them all.

@Emirdy:, @Durbaneditor: --Hipal (talk) 00:28, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Here's a partial list of SPAs I'm referring to. Note that these are all abandoned kamikazes, so there's not much of a need to notify them as far as I'm aware.

• Ndemille (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Mallik sai (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Berkpereira (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Zambot84 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Jade2562 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Yuchenlichuck (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Zambot ai (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Zambot84 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Pcompeau (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Velvel2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

When examining the contributions of these accounts and others in the page history of the articles, you can essentially go in a big circle, the articles are all connected via a shared editor, or in some cases, more than one degree of separation. This isn't the end, either - you can keep going, and you'll find more articles, and many more accounts. I don't have all that much faith in my investigative abilities, but I know something is going on here. MediaKyle (talk) 01:00, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello @MediaKyle - I’m a real person and a real contributor and I think you’re letting your imagination get the best of you. I don’t know any of these other accounts, but I can say that I’ve always done my utmost to add useful, factual information. 2001:8F8:1621:3E16:8C76:6351:CD16:5DB8 (talk) 06:30, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Not imagination, facts that you chose to divert attention from. Do provide evidence of your own editing, since you've indicated you're involved. --Hipal (talk) 18:19, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Victor Adebowale, Baron Adebowale

• Victor Adebowale, Baron Adebowale (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Atticus2025 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Pretty clear this editor is the subject or is being paid by the subject. The previous okay-ish BLP (November 2024 version) has, over the course of a week, been turned into a LinkedIn bio –– indeed, the first thing in the article is a very prominent external link to Adebowale LinkedIn page! At this point, the article is little more than a collection of external links to profiles and puff pieces about Adebowale. I reverted back to the November version and warned the editor about COI editing yesterday, but was simply reverted this morning. They then went on to make three minor edits to other articles, all breaking WP:MOS rules, perhaps as a way of saying "look, I'm a real editor after all!". I'm not prepared to edit war, so the article is currently in a LinkedInny state. 81.2.123.64 (talk) 12:53, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

A note that this editor continues to slow-motion edit war (with me and other editors) on turning the page back into a LinkedIn bio. I have warned them about our policies on edit warring, but don't know if they're not listening or can't hear me. 81.2.123.64 (talk) 18:22, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

National Democratic Institute

• National Democratic Institute (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 73.132.8.36 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

73.132.8.36 has made promotional edits to National Democratic Institute today; their history shows they only make edits there and on a related page.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 14:30, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Agreed. I reverted one of their edits, but they just re-edited it back. Caleb's World11 (talk) 15:56, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Comment - An IP editing an article a few times does not mean its a paid employee doing it. DotesConks (talk) 00:47, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Dave Ramsey

• Dave Ramsey (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• The Ramsey Show (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Ramsey Solutions (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• John Delony (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• George Kamel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Ken Coleman (radio host) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Rachel Cruze (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 2719Hyperion (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The editor overwhelmingly edits pages related to Dave Ramsey (a personal finance commentator) and people associated with Ramsey. The edits are highly promotional and the editor was asked in Feb 2025 about the promotional nature of their edits[1]. One of the editor's contributions is a photo taken at Ramsey Solutions' HQ in a small town in Tennessee[2]. While the editor might be a very enthusiastic fan who travels to see the HQ, I wonder if it's not more likely that they have a COI. Thenightaway (talk) 15:54, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

The article has a history of problematic content and editing, which may just be fan-pov problems, maybe some anti-fans as well. --Hipal (talk) 18:45, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

A very enthusiastic fan likely has a COI, just not a professional one. We don't allow unpaid promotion any more than we allow paid promotion. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:54, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

I live near Franklin, Tennessee—which is not a "small town," but a fairly substantial city that's part of the Nashville metro area—and drive by the Ramsey HQ (which is a kind of a tourist destination) virtually every day on my way up and down the freeway. I've been following Ramsey's financial teachings for over ten years. However, if you look at my contributions overall, they cover a variety of subjects—from Disney to American history, music, pop culture, and yes, Dave Ramsey.

As with all my edits, I simply found a need and tried to fill it using my research skills and interests (which is what I thought we were encouraged to do on this platform). Other non-Ramsey examples are articles for the Adventureland Treehouse and the Walt Disney Archives and edits I made to Great Moments with Mr. Lincoln.

The Ramsey Show is the second-most popular radio show in the US and the hosts are very well known all over the country and have their own podcasts that have big audiences (which you can see from their YouTube views). I made articles for three of them because they weren't there and their notoriety and place on the show warranted them. The only one I didn't bother making a page on was Jade Warshaw because she's relatively new, isn't as well known, hasn't written any bestsellers, doesn't have her own show, and there's nothing really about her out there. And I edited the ones for Dave Ramsey and Rachel Cruze because there were inaccuracies and the formatting was iffy.

I even responded to tags from other editors, like on the Dave Ramsey article about not separating controversial topics into their own sections. And I also made good faith attempts to correct things when articles were tagged for being "too promotional." I modeled the article formats and content after other articles I saw on the platform—both business and biographical. I didn't think anything I wrote was promotional, and most of my sources were from places other than the "official" website (though I did use that when I couldn't find anything else). I read through the help article about promotional language and did my best to sound unbiased (example: I never considered deleting the controversial material in the articles for the sake of neutrality).

What about them sounded promotional? Was there too much biographical info? Most Wikipedia company articles mention the products the company makes by name. Are we not supposed to write that books are bestsellers? Are we not supposed to mention that certain recording artists have x amount of top 40 hits or that movies from a certain actor have made billions of dollars, for that matter? Because I've seen that on this platform as well. What is the standard?

I'm honestly trying to understand. I'm just trying to be a helpful contributor. Thank you. 2719Hyperion (talk) 02:34, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you're not following the relevant policies and guidelines with these articles, resulting in articles that promote their subjects in the manner that someone working for Ramsey would do.

All these articles need careful review. Most should be deleted or completely rewritten. --Hipal (talk) 16:15, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Could you please be specific? I want my edits to be compliant with the policies and guidelines. I can honestly see no difference in the kind of language and style I used in those articles and something like the content in articles for Lady Gaga or Warner Bros., for example. Or even the one I created for the Walt Disney Archives. And like those articles, all of the info was derived from publicly available sources.

I can't properly submit these for review if I don't know what you're looking for. Please give me examples. I don't think any of these articles warrant deletion. These are hosts of a very popular national radio show, and they at least derive notoriety from that alone. There are Wikipedia articles about people with far less notoriety. 2719Hyperion (talk) 02:20, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

You can properly submit these pages for review and feedback through WP:AfC. Reviewers can opine on notability and other guidelines such a neutral point of view and tone. One this that jumps out at me is your initial creation of Ramsey Solutions which has a large section on "products and services." They are bullet point lists that look like a sales brochure for the company, not an encyclopedia page. When someone writes a Wikipedia page that contains information on what the company wants people to know about it and not what people necessarily expect to see in an encyclopedia, that gives a huge red flag that there is a potential COI. --CNMall41 (talk) 02:35, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

2719Hyperion, look at what I've been doing at Ramsey Solutions and we can discuss on its talk page why almost all of the History section should be removed as blatant promotion. --Hipal (talk) 16:26, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm a little confused because I have seen several company articles that have products, services, and personnel listed within the body of the article: The Coca-Cola Company, Warner Bros., The Walt Disney Company, etc. Is that not correct? 2719Hyperion (talk) 02:03, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

User:Koyes Ahmed Apu discreetly advertising

I checked out this persons User Page and it was a bunch of text in another language, likely Hindi. I parsed it through a translator as I do not speak whatever language they have on their user page and it reads the following:

"Bangladesh Khelafat Chhatra Majlis, Barlekha Upazila Bangladesh Khelafat Chhatra Majlis (BKSM) is an Islamic student organization, which is the student organization of Bangladesh Khelafat Majlis party. The organization's main goal is the propagation of Islamic education and establishment of Islamic values among Muslim youths. Establishment and Objective: Bangladesh Khelafat Chhatra Majlis was established in 1990 for the purpose of the Islamic movement in Bangladesh. It works to propagate Islamic education and values among Muslim student society, moral and social development, and establishment of Islamic society. The organization primarily works aiming to create a spirit of Islamic unity, solidarity, and sacrifice among the youths. The organization's activities are ongoing across various regions of Bangladesh, where Islamic education and social responsibility among local students are being increased activities. Bangladesh Khelafat Chhatra Majlis conducts various religious, social, and cultural activities, among which Islamic seminars, discussion meetings, religious education workshops, and volunteer activities are included. The organization works in local schools, colleges, and universities for the propagation of Islamic etiquette and moral education. Current President. Currently, Muhammad Kayes Ahmad is fulfilling responsibility as the president of Barlekha Upazila branch. He assumed responsibility in June 2024, and under his leadership, the organization is actively working to establish Islamic values among local student society. Contact. To contact Bangladesh Khelafat Chhatra Majlis, Barlekha Upazila branch, communication can be made through their official social media pages or website."

This is clearly advertising without disclosure so I recommend action be taken. Thank you. DotesConks (talk) 22:00, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Tagged for speedy deletion under CSD U5. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:47, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Wendelin Küpers and User:Kuepers

• Wendelin Küpers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Kuepers (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user right here has recently created an article I believe on himself (username gives a pretty big hint). In the entire article there is nothing negative about the subject. Even ignoring that, the person is undoubtably not notable. The user has had his user page deleted because Wikipedia is not a web host and I believe he is trying again but with an article instead of his own User Page. DotesConks (talk) 22:13, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

I've WP:PRODed it. If the prod is rejected, it can go to AfD, which it surely won't pass. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:44, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

hi, I created this page not as promotion page, as a translation of the German page, What do you mean by loaded langugage? How do you define notable? I can provide further evidence if needed. thanks for your understanding with kind regards Wendelin Küpers Kuepers (talk) 08:54, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Firstly, the German-language Wikipedia project has its own standards regarding article content, and accordingly, what is acceptable there may not be here and vice versa. As for notability, read WP:NACADEMIC, which is the relevant guideline. Note also that Wikipedia is not a web hosting service, that biographical articles are not resumes, and that content should be primarily based on what independent sources have to say about the subject. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:50, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

@Kuepers So I was wrong on loaded language and I apologize for that, but I am correct that there is nothing negative about the person. Not one mistake, controversy, or even dispute the article's subject has been in. Which I will give you the benefit of the doubt and say, maybe he was just a good guy and tried his hardest not to get into disputes. Even then, the subject would fail the test of notability. I can summarize the entire article in 3 sentences: Wendelin Kupers goes to college, he studies a perfectly normal subject, gets his PhD, and becomes a lecturer at a university. He has co-published many books. There is nothing notable about him. He didn't find a cure to cancer, he didn't invent a way to travel faster than the speed of light, he didn't discover an entire species of microbiomes. He is just your regular scientist, went through college, got his degree, teaches at university, and co-publishes a few books. DotesConks (talk) 17:36, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

User Hifisamurai

• Hifisamurai (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• TEDxPortland 2024 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) - all that YouTube and link dump should be obvious

The user has been editing for over 15 years but continues to show editing trend that is overtly suggestive of promotional editing, such as adding social media links in EL, adding poorly soured contents in article areas of events, companies and people. Graywalls (talk) 03:37, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

@Graywalls Just wondering, do you have a specific article/business that you think they may have a COI with? I've taken a glance through their edits, and their interests seem pretty consistent for somebody living on the US West Coast who likes sports, music, and alcohol. (Why craft breweries get fanclubs is beyond me, but they do). Looking through the actual quality of their edits, and while it's clear they have some issues with NPOV, sourcing, and when external links are appropriate - but I think that's just because they're a fairly casual editor who nobody has explained these things to yet. Some of their early edits (such as this one) are just lifted from external websites. While some UPE editors do insert copyvios, overall, this appears to me to be a good-faith editor who hasn't yet been told what's appropriate for an encyclopedia and what's not. That's probably not helped by the fact that they seem to be using a large language model (by their own admission, and also apparent when you look at the markup gaffs in edits like this). Unless you have a more concrete connection, I'll go to their talkpage and give them a quick explanation about encyclopedic writing and a link to the Teahouse. If they carry on using generative AI then we can deal with that, but I'm not seeing a pressing COI/UPE issue. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 04:31, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

@GreenLipstickLesbian this pretty much sums it up. This was in main space, but I moved it to draft. Special:Diff/1279816286 sourcing here is not something you would expect from someone with 15 year editing experience and that brewery one happened after they acknowledged a warning for Special:Diff/1279500696 which is promotional. If you look at the edits they've actually done, you'll see they're all highly promotional and don't comply with WP:RS. The nature of edits they've done strongly suggets they're working/freelancing for PR, SEO or advertisement services. Graywalls (talk) 06:06, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Yes, that reads like LLM garbage. But without an actual product. person, or business to promote... I've looked at all their edits, and I'm having a hard time finding a tangible connection. Could there be one? Yes. But the preponderance of evidence suggests that this is a very casual editor (15 years of experience, but with only 342 edits) who found ChatGPT in 2023 and didn't stop to think why using it would be a bad idea. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 06:14, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm guessing you saw Magnolia's warning on their talk page. Also the types of source they're using. This is quite obvious. Graywalls (talk) 06:24, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Graywalls, you're arguing the wrong thing herre. I'm not claiming that their edits are good or constructive- I'm saying that I haven't seen evidence that this is due to a conflict of interest or paid editing. Their editing is too inconsistent, for starters. They're far from being an SPA, they have all the normal pop culture edits. Now, if you wish to argue for that a specific relation exists you are more than welcome to do so. But nobody else is going to do that legwork for you. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 06:42, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

This is also suspicious:https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Mickey_Visit_Logo.png&oldid=1008969429 when contributions Special:Diff/1275970671 and Special:Diff/1278196638 are taken into consideration together. Again overall, the account screams public relations editing. Graywalls (talk) 09:33, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

See, that's more interesting, and much more concrete, so thank you. [3][4] However, fours edits were replacing citation needed tags with citations aren't exactly a smoking gun, especially given that we've established they have some form of connection to the American West Coast, especially California. Again, maybe, but if this was UPE editing, then why are all their interests focussed on a relatively consistent geographic region? We live in the age of the internet - clients would come from all over the world, or at least from all over the country. This is reading to me like a local with poor understanding of Wikipedia, not somebody being paid to make edits. But, either way, we're in a bit of a holding pattern until we see what they do after being talked to (instead of templated). There's simply not enough evidence presented in this thread to be actionable by itself. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 09:46, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

I see spamming of a travel website (Mickey Visit) to multiple articles, which is a huge red flag. Also multiple articles with no reliable sourcing at all. Also other links to commercial sites, overreliance on primary sources, etc. No idea if it's COI, but at minimum we need Hifisamurai to get a better understanding of WP:RS: no commercial sites, avoid primary sources, and only include something when you already have a citation to a solid book, journal article, magazine, newspaper, or high-quality website. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:14, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

On their own, it's not conclusive, but when Hifisamurai's this upload is taken into consideration, it raises fair suspicion they're in communication. One form of promotional editing that is common is the art of looking for high traffic article with inadequate citations where their clients' link can be shoehorned into.

Uploaded a work by Gavin Doyle of mickeyvisit.com from Gavin Doyle, the owner of mickeyvisit.com. On the Medical tourism in Tijuana they've written, the act of writing an article the way they want it written, chock full of specific business/companies/destination with the plan of sourcing references to go around what they want to write is a red flag. Dropping a massive farm of YouTube links in TEDxPortland 2024 is also suggestive. So is an article like Listening Bar that drops business names generously. That article was Draftified by another editor. Graywalls (talk) 02:07, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Assistance re User:BioEditss

 Courtesy link: User talk:BioEditss § Do you know Arun Chockalingam?

User BioEditss (talk · contribs) wrote Draft:Arun Chockalingam and it raised some possible COI issues in my mind regarding the subject of their Draft, so I posted § Do you know Arun Chockalingam? on their Talk page to ask about it. I received a prompt and forthright response. Their relationship, if any, seems oblique to me, and I was unsure whether they should disclose a COI. I am bringing this here to request assistance in determining whether they have a COI status that should be disclosed (at least formally, to the extent it might affect whether they should edit the Draft or make Edit requests instead; they have been open on their Talk page about what appears to be a peripheral connection). Thanks in advance for any help. Mathglot (talk) 04:02, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

I do not think a COI needs to be declared here. BioEditss said that they do not have a direct personal connection to Chockalingam, only an educational one through someone else. PhoenixCaelestis • Talk • Contributions 12:30, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi PhoenixCaelestis, Thank you for your review and input. I appreciate your clarification regarding the COI concern. BioEditss (talk) 19:31, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

COI Request for Review – Joshua Amponsem

• Joshua Amponsem (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 2600:4041:7950:2600:6545:6A82:D495:AB5C (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hello, I am Joshua Amponsem, the subject of this [[5]]. I have posted on the Talk page requesting the removal of the undisclosed paid editing warning, as I have not engaged in paid editing. Additionally, I would like independent editors to review and improve the article for neutrality and verifiability. Since I have a COI, I am requesting assistance here. Thank you! 2600:4041:7950:2600:6545:6A82:D495:AB5C (talk) 23:46, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

It might be because positive content that violates NPOV was placed on the article. Also if you are who you claim to be, I implore you that you please read Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Help, it answers 99% of questions on BLP articles. DotesConks (talk) 02:43, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Also you have edited the article, though to be fair after you posted these requests and that was long after the template was placed on the page. DotesConks (talk) 02:44, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Lower Shing Mun

• Devil in a Lawyers Suit - a rapist posthumous logos (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• David Bitel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Jimmy Lai in Chains (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• International Commission of Jurists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Mary Rose Liverani (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• The Law Society Journal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Lower Shing Mun (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Editor is using Wikipedia as a soapbox to highlight the causes of Mark A. Tarrant.

Devil in a Lawyers Suit - a rapist posthumous logos is a film co written and co directed by lawyer Mark A. Tarrant exposing the alleged evils of David Bitel, both articles started by Lower Shing Mun. Both this cause and film were coatracked by Lower Shing Mun into International Commission of Jurists [6] [7] [8] [9], The Law Society Journal [10], Refugee Council of Australia [11] [12] [13] [14], Archibald Fountain [15] [16], Law Society of New South Wales [17] and newly created Mary Rose Liverani [18].

Jimmy Lai in Chains is a sign commissioned by lawyer Mark A. Tarrant and includes info on a film directed by Tarrant. Said sign was created as a centre piece for protests around political prisoner and journalist Jimmy Lai.

Other edits include adding criticism of Jonathan D. Spence sourced to an essay by lawyer Mark A. Tarrant [19] [20] [21]. Repeating despite reverts as a generally unreliable source.

When not furthering the causes of Tarrant xe is putting Tarrant into a cast list [22] and removing credentials from Patrick Keane [23] [24], a Judge involved with the Jimmy Lai case that Tarrant has issues with. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:18, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Please note that the instructions for this page include, This page should only be used when ordinary talk page discussion has been attempted and failed to resolve the issue. Did you attempt to discuss this first? -- Pemilligan (talk) 14:24, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

User:OsFish commented on the coatracking [25] 7 March. That attempt to engage on Lowers talk page was ignored and Lower went on to continue to coatrack the cause less than an hour later [26]. So whilst I personally did not the issue was raised and ignored. duffbeerforme (talk) 15:05, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

I know this account as someone constantly trying to coatrack the case of David Bitel, a human rights lawyer with multiple criminal charges of sex abuse of clients hanging over him when he died, into various articles, recklessly accusing various people and organisations of complicity, or cover-up or smearing by association (a BLP nightmare, frankly). In terms of possible COI, I note that Lower Shing Mun claims to have taken the picture of David Bitel in the article there. OsFish (talk) 16:08, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Please don't use edit summaries for insults. -- Pemilligan (talk) 16:28, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

COI: Frazer Goodwin

• European Public Health Alliance (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Frazer Goodwin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

the user appears to have recently created a SPA after, I suspect, editting as the IP 193.35.87.123 and has been engaged in an edit war. A quick Google search[27] shows the username to match that of the Comms Manager of the Organisation that is tie subject of the article. Jo Jc Jo^{Talk💬Edits📝} 19:47, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

All of that is true, but warnings have been posted to the talk pages of both the account & the IP address, and there has not yet been any editing since the warnings, so there is absolutely no basis for taking any action, and no need for this report. JBW (talk) 20:23, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Cox Hicks House

• Cox Hicks House (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• MollyParkerLind (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

MollyParkerLind, who has indicated that she is one of the owners of this property, created this article through AfC. I redirected it due to lack of notability and NPOV/tone issues and left a COI notice. Against my advice, MollyParkerLind has recreated the article. I think this is improper given her COI and would appreciate outside eyes on the matter. Thanks, Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:45, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Poorly sourced, promotional, and in the latter sections, off-topic. If the house merits an article at all, it needs to be rewritten in a neutral tone: i.e. not stating opinion (i.e. "a historically significant structure" etc) as fact. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:02, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

98 Winthrop Street, Cox Hicks House has been deemed a historically significant structure by:

The City of Cambridge Historical Commission: Listed as a City of Cambridge Historic Landmark (1988)

State of Massachusetts: Listed in State Register of Historic Places (1988)

National Register of Historic Places (1988)

[28] MollyParkerLind (talk) 14:35, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

@MollyParkerLind, properties listed on the National Register of Historic Places are generally considered notable for wikipedia, however the Cambridge list of NHRP entries (as of March 2025) doesn't include this house. Do you have a link to its NRHP listing? Schazjmd (talk) 16:54, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

@Schazjmd: It's a contributing property to the Harvard Square Historic District. Contributing properties are generally not individually notable, and this one doesn't seem to be. I'm more concerned about MollyParkerLind's COI, though, since she doesn't seem to understand why she should not be creating/editing the article. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:49, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Vegan Camp Out

• Vegan Camp Out (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Simply patience 405 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user has disclosed their connection to Vegan Camp Out, stating on the talk page that they work for them. They have repeatedly made biased edits, including deleting sourced content and adding promotional material.

Have tried to explain to them and link them to help pages on Wikipedia referencing policies etc. but they've repeatedly sourced the organisation's own website/social media and personal conversations they've had with the organisers.

Page was semi-protected for a week due to their edit-warring, but pretty much as soon as the protection was lifted they copy-and-pasted the exact same edit again.

Their language is clearly promotional. Seems they probably made their account solely for this purpose. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RufusLechuga (talk • contribs)

Just to say they only have one edit on the actual article. Secretlondon (talk) 19:49, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Yes, but to clarify, they actually made numerous edits despite being reverted. The original ones however show up as IPs (mostly 185.85.253.74 but there was another one too). But it's copy-and-paste identical wording to the edits under their username and they did say on the talk page they were their edits.

It's a significant edit which removed referenced info and replaced with unreferenced promotional wording. They made the edit probably about 6 times even after it was reverted.

This time they appear to have left some of the original citations in, despite them now contradicting the unreferenced information they've replaced it with, in order to make it looks as though it's "referenced". RufusLechuga (talk) 20:31, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

SafariScribe's paid editing

• Aliko Dangote (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• SafariScribe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I have off Wiki evidence implicating user:SafariScribe in the paid editing of Aliko Dangote the evidence is an axiomatic smoking gun that speaks for itself. Where shall I send it? Postit note warrior (talk) 21:20, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

@Postit note warrior See Wikipedia:REPORTPAID. Send private evidence to the email address there. Expect to take a few weeks to a month before you hear anything. Graywalls (talk) 05:22, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

OP blocked as an UPE, per a COI VRT ticket. 331dot (talk) 18:22, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Possible COI in Article "Suicide of Prakriti Lamsal"

I believe the article "Suicide of Prakriti Lamsal" may violate Wikipedia's **Conflict of Interest (WP:COI)** policy. The article appears to be written with a biased intent, potentially to damage the reputation of an institution rather than provide neutral, verifiable information.

Key issues: - The topic does not seem to meet **Wikipedia’s notability standards (WP:EVENT)**. - The article lacks balanced perspectives and independent coverage. - There are serious claims that require stronger sources to avoid undue bias.

I request administrators and experienced editors to review the neutrality of this article and determine if it should be revised or removed.

Link to the article: [29]

NeetaDubey (talk) 14:32, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

@NeetaDubey: You've already mentioned these concerns at Talk:Suicide of Prakriti Lamsal. What specific evidence do you have to show that one or more editors have a conflict of interest? Vague, unsubstantiated suspicions won't be seen as credible. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 14:54, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

@Drm310 NeetaDubey (talk) 15:17, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

@Drm310: NeetaDubey (talk) 15:18, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

@Drm310 NeetaDubey (talk) 15:23, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

@Drm310: NeetaDubey (talk) 15:24, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

NeetaDubey Please stop pinging Drm310. Are you attempting to post something? 331dot (talk) 15:29, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

My reply wasn't posted earlier causing multiple pings.

The article was created very recently, shortly after the incident, which raises concerns about **agenda-driven-editing** rather than meeting Wikipedia's **notability WP: EVENT)** guidelines. NeetaDubey (talk) 15:39, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

That's not uncommon for news events and by itself does not indicate a conflict of interest. 331dot (talk) 15:47, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

This noticeboard also states: "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." It does not look like you attempted to engage any editors involved with this page, and came directly here. You also also supposed to notify any involved editors of the discussion here, but you didn't do that either.

It also looks like you attempted to list the article at Articles for Deletion, but you didn't do that properly either. Why are you so determined to have this article deleted? --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 16:17, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

At my learning phase NeetaDubey (talk) 16:25, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

@Drm310: you restored older version while I corrected the tags. If you feel I have done it improper ways, would you help put down the concerns on the same page?

what makes you think I am forcing this?

I have raised concerns and invitied Wikipedia contributors to put their views, and removing my concerns without justification doesn't justify this act. Sounds like vandalizing the process. NeetaDubey (talk) 16:42, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

NeetaDubey, you made your concerns known on the article talk page. But then you unnecessarily escalated it to this noticeboard, and then attempted (unsuccessfully) to have the article deleted. There was no good reason for these additional actions without first waiting for feedback to your initial concerns. There is no deadline on Wikipedia; discussions can take time before editors can reach consensus.

If you're a newcomer and still in the learning phase, as you say, then perhaps you should spend some time with the introductory tutorial. This will help you learn more about how Wikipedia works, allow others to contribute to the discussion you started, and hopefully minimize any further disruptive edits. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 16:51, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

There is a legitimate BLPCRIME concern here, so I removed references to the person arrested, as they haven't even been charged as far as I can tell. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 20:40, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

EllisDon

• EllisDon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• PaulaC27 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The editor is slow editwarring on EllisDon to add a lot of unsourced fluff in the article. In my humble opinion, that fluff is corporate spam. A discussion on User talk:PaulaC27 had led to nothing yet, but only strengthens my idea that we have a COI-editor here. Either a paid-editor (although denied) or a corporate account under a personal name. I think action is required. The Banner talk 19:34, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Agreed, I believe this is a WP:PAID situation, with some ownership issues as well. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 19:47, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

I listed a bunch of accounts on the article talk page that look like past undisclosed paid editors as well. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 20:00, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Erin Sarofsky

• Erin Sarofsky (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Coreyfullmorejr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Persistent use of promotional language,[30] removing issue templates without addressing them,[31] inserting links to the subject's company,[32] re-adding unreliable sources after they were removed.[33] They were warned about COI editing in January [34] and continued to edit the article in question without addressing the warning.[35] Without trying to out this user, if their username is their real-world name, you can see that that individual works for the article subject's company and specifically works as a "creative social media specialist with a focus on paid media" (according to LinkedIn). Vegantics (talk) 20:54, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Kongjian Yu

• Kongjian Yu (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Mydogistiaotiaohu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Mydogistiaotiaohu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam) is a WP:SPA that has been adding promotional / resume-like content to Kongjian Yu since 2019. - Amigao (talk) 23:53, 20 March 2025 (UTC)