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:260 Collins Talk:Pamela Anderson Talk:Moshe Bar (neuroscientist) Talk:BEE Japan Talk:Edi Birsan Talk:Adam Boehler Talk:BP Talk:Captions (app) Talk:Casualty Actuarial Society Talk:Cofra Holding Talk:Cohen Milstein Talk:Commvault Talk:Chris Daniels (musician) Talk:DEGIRO Talk:Dell Technologies Talk:Michael Dell Talk:Nina L. Diaz Talk:Doctrine (startup) Talk:Element (software) Talk:Etraveli Group Talk:Florida Power & Light Talk:Gentlemen Prefer Blondes (novel) Talk:Nicholas Gotsell Talk:Grizzly Creek Fire Talk:Henley & Partners Talk:Insight Meditation Society Talk:Daymond John Talk:Norma Kamali Talk:David Lalloo Talk:Alexa Meade Talk:Metro AG Talk:Alberto Musalem Talk:NAPA Auto Parts Talk:NextEra Energy Talk:PetSmart Charities Talk:Qu Dongyu Talk:Sharp HealthCare Talk:Colleen Joy Shogan Talk:Shuntarō Tanikawa Talk:Lorraine Twohill Talk:United States Postal Service Talk:University of Toronto Faculty of Arts and Science Talk:Uppsala Monitoring Centre Talk:Year Up

Srđan Šaper & user:Pcelica Matica

• Srđan Šaper (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Pcelica Matica (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Pcelica Matica has a long history of promotional edits related to Srđan Šaper. After quite a while Pcelica Matica is now back, clearly working on behalf of Srđan Šaper. With this promotional unsourced edit], he states in the summary Minor change added in Biography about I&F Grupa. I have Srđan s consent to make this change.. In my opinion, this is clear WP:COI- editing, possibly even WP:PAID. The Banner talk 13:06, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. And the user's apparent refusal to engage on their talkpage over a number of years does them little credit.

There seems to be a long history of WP:SPAs editing the article in question here.

I've just removed some promo, unsourced, self-sourced and inadmissibly sourced (blog/IMDb) material. After doing so I couldn't help but wonder if the real solution here was perhaps AfD. Axad12 (talk) 14:49, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

I have the idea that Saper is noteworthy but uses the article for selfpromo. But have someone at hand to do that for him. First you had user:User talk:Prezbiterijanac (now blocked) and a few months later Pcelica Matica arrived. The Banner talk 17:36, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

I was also thinking of user:Anja Kosanovic (2010-13), this IP address [1] (2011-15), user:Balkanska ulica (2013-14), another IP address [2] (2014, now blocked, and with links to an extensive Serbian sockfarm [3]), user:Rade Radisa (2016, whose only 2 edits were to remove money laundering allegations from the article and then provide an explanation for doing so), and another IP address [4] (2017-19).

The article has twice been to AfD, here [5] and here [6].

The fact that the accounts mentioned throughout this thread are all red linked over a 14 year period tells it's own story. Ditto for the fact that none of them have ever responded to talk page notices throughout that period. Surely it is highly likely that the more recent activity is block evasion from the blocked spam/advertising Prezbeterijanac account. Some of the accounts mentioned above have also edited the article for Saper's father, [7], which perhaps indicates a family link rather than WP:UPE, but who knows?

(One slight correction to your comment above, user:Pcelica Matica had actually been editing the Srdan Saper article since 2013, so a long time before the Prezbeterijanac block in Apr 2018, but it is true that Pcelica Matica became the main promo account from that time onwards.)

The very lengthy article about the father, Radomir Saper, is 68% authored by the previously mentioned user:Balkanska ulica and 8.5% by Pcelica Matica, and has the same poor sourcing and poor English, so I doubt if we need Sherlock Holmes to help us work out what has been going on here. Axad12 (talk) 18:33, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Mockbul Ali

• Mockbul Ali (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 2A02:C7C:F349:3A00:F56E:F427:A81E:8626 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• SharonJean90 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• PeterJame45 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• TimLan56 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The IP has been edit-warring to add promotional fluff to this article for quite a while, and now these brand-new users keep popping up to join in. I gave up on reverting their edits and tagged the page for promo instead, but now they're edit-warring to remove the tags too. This has been going on for several weeks now.:Jay8g [V•T•E] 18:17, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Edit warring over the contents of this article has been going on ever since it was set up in 2015. This has previously resulted in multiple blocks for sockpuppetry [8]. There are also plenty of WP:SPAs visible in the article contribution history, more frequently recently by IP addresses who edit the article extensively, e.g. [9], [10].

Surely it is unthinkable that an ambassador of His Majesty's Government would have been extensively editing his own Wikipedia article using a range of sock puppets over a 9 year period. We will need to look for some alternative explanation... Axad12 (talk) 18:51, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Also, given that somebody seems to have been curating this article in a promotional way over many years using multiple accounts, it may be worth revisiting the negative material that was being edit warred over back in 2015. The sockpuppets were claiming that it was defamatory, controversial, unsubstantiated, etc., but on the face of it the material would appear to have been sourced to reliable British broadsheet newspapers.

Whoever the end user was, they appear to have foolishly set up seven(?) different single purpose accounts simply to edit war over that material (so, shades of deja vu with the more recent events).

The fact that that material ended up being excluded from the article may be more of a reflection of the persistency of the sockpuppetry and edit warring than a reflection on whether the material was factually accurate and worthy of inclusion. Axad12 (talk) 19:25, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

It just keeps going. Now they're claiming it's "prejudicial" to not include the promotional material they want. :Jay8g [V•T•E] 19:30, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

The best way to sort this out would be (a) to launch an SPI to get the blatant sockpuppets all blocked and (b) to then get page protection to prevent further promo vandalism. Axad12 (talk) 19:40, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

The way that the user keeps setting up new accounts for every act of edit warring makes it obvious that this is block evasion by the same end user who had multiple socks blocked many years ago. Axad12 (talk) 19:48, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Page protection now requested at WP:RPPI. I would do the SPI as well but I don't know how to. (In an ideal world an admin would just block the accounts without an SPI, as they are obvious promo only, block evading socks, as per WP:DUCK). Axad12 (talk) 19:55, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SharonJean90. :Jay8g [V•T•E] 22:29, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Socks are all 'technically indistinguishable' (and presumably will be blocked) and article has been protected, so that hopefully ought to resolve matters. Axad12 (talk) 23:07, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Just a note to say that a further sock [11] was recently blocked after gaming the system to get the necessary level of access to reinsert the promotional material that was recently removed. Edits were reverted by user:BubbaJoe123456 and user:Ponyo.

I wonder, is the subject of the article here even vaguely notable? Would referral to AfD not be the best way to prevent further promotion and persistent socking? Axad12 (talk) 07:28, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Fizziest

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

Came across this user while reviewing AFC submissions. Since creating their account in September with 129 edits, they've submitted ~20 articles to AFC of which none have been accepted.

More concerning, they have directly published three articles without going through AFC. Treacy is a duplicate of an existing page, Gunter seems blatantly promotional (tagged), and Misty Blues has questionable notability (also tagged).

• Patrick Treacy (physician) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Gregory Gunter (San Miguel de Allende) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Misty Blues (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Avgeekamfot (talk) 22:31, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Account has now been blocked for promotion/advertising/UPE by Bbb23. Axad12 (talk) 02:11, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Legal services in the United Kingdom

• Legal services in the United Kingdom (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• User:Alexander Ashcroft (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• User:Alexander Ashcroft/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Draft:Locate Solicitors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Alexander Ashcroft (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Self-confessed founder of a law firm comparison-shopping company, Locate Solicitors. 81.2.123.64 (talk) 22:33, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

The editor has been warned, his article edits have been reverted, blatantly promotional pages they created have been deleted, and the draft about his company has been declined. There's nothing more to be done at present. JBW (talk) 23:06, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Perfect. Thank you. 81.2.123.64 (talk) 11:57, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Update: The editor has continued with promotional editing, so I gave blocked the account. JBW (talk) 00:06, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Mount Tabor Indian Community (page and majority of content created by founder)

• Mount Tabor Indian Community (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Terran57 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Careful review of page exposes page creation and a majority of information sourced to founder of the Mount Tabor Indian Community group J.C. Thompson who is now deceased. J.C. Thompson's "handle" on social media is used for his Wikipedia username: Terran57. Thompson's Facebook page and others carry the same username or url: https://www.facebook.com/Terran57. The page, content, and subsequent confusion on the talk page by editors attempting to navigate true historical groups from modern ones, facts from propaganda, and authentic attempts to educate or illuminate vs. simply to advertise, are all symptomatic of the carefully crafted self-interest and self-promotion of the article. This article seems to have been created for the sole purpose of legitimizing and adverting this self-proclaimed Native American Community. A brief but thorough investigation into the community shows they have been exposed by national news outlets, Federally Recognized Tribes, and Native American Advocacy groups, as being a CPAIN, falsely claiming Native American history, and illegitimate. J.C. Thompson was involved with another controversial group "Nothern Cherokee Nation" in Missouri who are part of an ongoing investigation in to over $300 million dollars in fraud as put forward by the L.A. Times. This article, as can be discovered by review of its creation and posts, were created by J.C. Thompson about his own organization Mount Tabor Indian Community. In entry after entry the near full body of information was created by him using original research and personal thoughts and opinions. He carries his work over to multiple other pages including "Yowani Choctaws" and even attempts to do so on the "Cherokee" page and others to give false support to his Mount Tabor Indian Community page. I am not an experienced editor, but I am an experienced user and in my personal experience I have never witness such blatant COI on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HistoryMingo (talk • contribs) 00:09, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that this is highly problematic and concerning.

With regard to the Mount Choctaw Indian Community article...

large swathes (even whole sections) are entirely unsourced and apparently promotional / own research (and where sources exist they are often not published sources). Terran57 is the author of 75% of the article, and it would seem reasonable to assume that if published sourcing existed for those sections then the user would have cited it.

Under the circumstances, large scale deletion of all material falling under the situation described above would appear uncontroversial.

There seem to have been a lot of similar concerns raised back in 2022 on the article talkpage.

With regard to the broader dissemination of Thompson's agenda across other articles, I wonder if there is a relevant Wikiproject in this topic area which might look into that with a view to cleanup? Axad12 (talk) 01:43, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Looking at the article talk page, Wikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America is relevant. TSventon (talk) 12:09, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Many thanks for the info. I have posted a message [12] on the project talkpage. Any input from the project would be much appreciated, especially on the nature of the article content and the agenda pursued by Thompson. Axad12 (talk) 12:35, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, this sort of thing happens all the time, in which members of organizations use Wikipedia to bolster claims about their group. User:Terran57 hasn't edited since 2022. The 19th-century Mount Tabor Indian Community is notable; the current organization is distinct from the historical group (deepest journalistic dive into the subject). So—Delete all unsourced material? Create separate articles for the 19th-century group and the more recent group claiming its name? Or have the majority of the article for the 19th-century organization and make a section at the bottom for the contemporary group. Yuchitown (talk) 00:33, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts here, that's very helpful. I've not read the entirety of the article but my impression is that it may be somewhat problematic for a non-specialist to try to disentangle the material in relation to the historical group from the material about the current organization (i.e. establishing where Thompson's agenda starts to kick in).

That being the case, I wonder if resolving the issues here would be better dealt with within the Wikiproject, especially if this is a type of phenomenon that the project has abundant experience of? That is especially the case with, say, the unsourced material - where a knowledgeable user would have a better idea of whether adding "citation needed" would be more appropriate than deletion.

Thanks again for your input here, very much appreciated. Axad12 (talk) 04:42, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

You might also take a look at User:Osodebourbon, a single-purpose accounts who deleted cited material. Yuchitown (talk) 00:36, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Kirkylad & Global Witness

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

The user’s user page states My purpose is to support my organisation Global Witness and reflect our research onto Wikipedia. Activity from this account is primarily in relation to spamming the name of Global Witness onto as many articles as possible to promote the group: e.g.[13], [14], [15], [16]. For example, the last of those diffs is simply noting that Global Witness called a CEO's salary 'sickening', plus a source.

Similarly [17] Mr van Beurden's pay package was criticized by human rights and environmental charity Global Witness, which called for a people-first windfall tax in the UK government's 2023 Spring Budget that includes executive bonuses.

And [18] (The pay rise] was criticized by Greenpeace and Global Witness, which questioned the appropriateness of such an increase while energy bills are a struggle for some families to pay.

And [19] Global Witness called such levels of pay “eyewatering … at a time when people are struggling to pay bills” and has hit out at levels of spending on renewable energy.

These issues were previously raised in this COIN thread [20] from back in September, around which time the user was notified of the relevant requirements under WP:COI.

Unfortunately the behaviour has recently resumed following the 2024 United Nations Climate Change Conference, the article for which seems to have presented an irresistible target for the onwiki activity of the protest group, e.g. [21], [22], [23] (the latter of which edits involves the spamming of the organisation’s protest poster onto the article).

The user’s edit summaries seem to indicate that they believe that when news coverage exists, inclusion is justified. Evidently that fails to take into consideration the conflict of interest angle. Since the user has previously been warned about this, and continues to use Wikipedia solely for the promotion of their protest group I would suggest that they be blocked as an account involved solely in promo/advertising. Axad12 (talk) 02:39, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

See also this edit [24] by an IP address, the format of which is similar to previous activity by Kirkylad. Axad12 (talk) 03:06, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

User Kirkylad has now been site blocked by Star Mississippi due to being an account devoted to promotion and advertising. With thanks, Axad12 (talk) 05:55, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Bolajoko Olubukunola Olusanya

• Bolajoko Olubukunola Olusanya (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• HSI-NGR (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Edits to the article by a user who says they are the subject of the article. User has been signposted to the CoI policy but has continued to edit the article. Tacyarg (talk) 14:56, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

I have reverted to the last good version prior to the latest round of COI edits.

If user:HSI-NGR wishes to propose edits to the article they should do so by following the COI edit request process (details here: WP:COI) on the article talk page rather than editing the article directly themselves.

Moving forwards, the user's compliance with the relevant policies and guidelines would be appreciated.

I would note, however, that much of the material that was recently removed from the article was of a highly promotional nature and re-submitting that precise material via the COI edit request would not be advisable as it will be declined.

The user has stated on their own talk page that they are quite disturbed by the outdated or inaccurate information published on my profile. In the first instance I would suggest that they concentrate on suggesting edits intended to resolve the perceived inaccuracies (the edit requests will need to be supported by reliable independent sources).

Hopefully this note is of assistance. Axad12 (talk) 05:39, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Please delete the entire article. It is not worth all the trouble. HSI-NGR (talk) 05:46, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

As a further point here, it appears that the HSI-NGR account is being operated as a shared account in contravention of the relevant policy.

For example:

Here and [25] here [26] the user claims to be the subject.

But there are also several duplicate posts (e.g. [27]) on the user's talk page by an IP account claiming I am Jacob a member of GRDDC and have undertaken these edits on behalf of Bolajoko Olusanya. Axad12 (talk) 05:49, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

It is not a shared account. I am the research administrator for Dr Olusanya. I manage all her web-based activities from the UK partly because of the poor internet connectivity in Lagos where she’s based. She is legally allowed to have an assistant as a disabled person. HSI-NGR (talk) 06:01, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Hrm. Do we not only have an issue with a conflict of interest but also undisclosed paid editing if Jacob's claim of being engaged to manage her web-based activities is correct? —C.Fred (talk) 06:04, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

I am Jacob Olusegun Olusanya. Hope that helps in clarifying the allegations on financial conflict. HSI-NGR (talk) 06:10, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

The specific issue there is whether you are conducting the edits while in a paid position associated with the subject or her organisation(s). Axad12 (talk) 06:20, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

I am not paid to support her! 2A00:23C8:2186:C401:BD26:4AE9:E785:E427 (talk) 06:28, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Carlton Wilborn

• Carlton Wilborn (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Carltonrising (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Clear WP:SPA only interested in editing an article about himself. Previous edits already revdeleted for copyright issues. See this edit PHShanghai | they/them (talk) 14:53, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Anahit saribekyan

• Anahit saribekyan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Anahit Saribekyan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User created autobiography. Synorem (talk) 17:11, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, and the first paragraph is a WP:COPYVIO from here: [28]. Copyvio is a problem that was pointed out on a previously turned down AfC from this user, but their talk page doesn't inspire confidence that the message will have been understood.

The user seems to have severe issues with both WP:CIR and promotion of herself and her employer (The International Dance Council). A look at the user's talk page reveals a long list of declined promo AfCs, and deleted promo material that was introduced directly into mainspace.

First there was this article on Dance Day [29], which was declined at AfC 5 times in the space of a month.

Then there was this article for International Certification of Dance Studies [30], turned down at AfC, nominated for speedy deletion, moved into mainspace, then back to draftspace, then back to mainspace and eventually deleted at AfD - all in the course of a fortnight.

(Both of the above articles are directly related to the International Dance Council.)

And now the user has moved an entirely unsourced and COPYVIO article about themselves directly to mainspace, only for it to go to AfD half an hour later. It was then speedy deleted under G11 within the hour.

As far as I can see this is a blatant promo only account which is wasting a lot of volunteer time. The fact that they started bypassing AfC is the clearest sign that something is wrong here. Axad12 (talk) 19:39, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

As further illustration of the issues here, an article for Dance Day has actually existed on Wikipedia since 2005 (under the title International Dance Day. We can only wonder why an employee of the organising body was repeatedly trying to create an inadequately sourced and very poorly written duplicate article. However, the 5 referrals to AfC and the reams of resultant back and forth communication on the user's talkpage indicates that a massive amount of time was wasted. Axad12 (talk) 19:52, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

For more of the same, see the article for Alkis Raftis (president of the International Dance Council), edited by the user above back in August, but set up by the obviously COI user CID-unesco (The IDC/CID is part of Unesco), and entirely bereft of references and apparently the work of the same hand. Another strange similarity, the article was originally created as Alkis raftis (lower case r) and the Anahit saribekyan article today had the same peculiarity.

The Raftis article was also extensively edited by user:International Dance Council which was site blocked in 2023 for being a promo/advertising only account.

WP:DUCK therefore indicates that user:Anahit Saribekyan is involved in block evasion. They are employed (by their own admission) by the International Dance Council, and they are involved only in promotional and advertising.

Copying in user:Jimfbleak who has been working on removing some of the material mentioned earlier in the thread. Axad12 (talk) 20:14, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Fun fact: user:Alkis Raftis even popped up as a meat puppet at the AfD for International Certification of Dance Studies [31] (their only edit). Axad12 (talk) 20:24, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

I thought about blocking this account, but the COI had been declared and it seemed to be as much a competence issue as anything, so I didn't, perhaps an error in retrospect Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:18, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Point taken, but surely block evasion after a block for promo/advertising isn't a competence issue - and the behaviour that got them blocked has continued (if anything, worse than before).

I wonder if you would care to reconsider? Axad12 (talk) 10:49, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

For example, declaring a COI doesn't give a user carte blanche to repeatedly crowbar promotional mateerial into mainspace that has been turned down at AfC, or to start bypassing AfC altogether with their promotional and unsourced autobiography. Axad12 (talk) 10:55, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Guys no problem. Let me know how to delete my account from here.

I am getting tired from the issue. Or delete my account from here. Anahit Saribekyan (talk) 13:04, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

@Anahit Saribekyan: Accounts cannot be deleted. If you don't want to edit Wikipedia anymore, simply abandon your account and never log into it again. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 13:06, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Pinialtaus

Pinialtaus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) For going straight to making ten edits after being old enough to meet the time requirement and then immediately to posting Yohei Kiguchi (entrepreneur) and Enechange (company). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oona Wikiwalker (talk • contribs) 22:58, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

• Update: Pinialtaus has now been blocked as a WP:SOCK, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Abbasshaikh124. RA0808 ^talk_contribs 19:11, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/EAllen04

• Flourishing (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Water For People (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• EAllen04 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

First time submitting something like this, so please bear with me.

It appears to me that user EAllen04 is the same Eleanor Allen named in the Water For People article. Eleanor recently edited the Flourishing article, contributing a word salad of advertising copy that further dilutes the quality of an article already thoroughly suffused with marketing-speak and woo.

EAllen04 was notified of their COI responsibilities in March of 2024. I notified them again following their most recent string of edits. Respectfully requesting a more seasoned editor double check my work here.

🆃🆁🆂™ 13:32, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

At this time I should also point out that in light of Wikipedia:INDISCRIMINATE, I struggle to discern a convincing case for the continued presence of the article Water For People anywhere within the scope of the project. The subject organization fails the notability test, and nearly all the cited sources are from either the organization itself or one of their members named in the article. If it were my choice, I'd say nuke this stinker -- but that's probably why I don't have any actual power around here ;) 🆃🆁🆂™ 13:44, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I'm inclined to agree with you. I've removed some unsourced text from Water For People and reverted the recent edits to Flourishing. As you say, AfD may be the solution for Water for People.

Looking at the edit history for Water For People, there have been various redlinked WP:SPAs editing the article from 2010 onwards, which is probably why it is such a mess.

However, on the other hand there is the following text, which is obviously some kind of WP:SYNTH/WP:OR and presumably doesn't originate from the organisation itself: Water For People reported in its 2015 IRS tax form that it spent a total of $18,844,346, in which $5,819,735 in administration, and $1,944,288 in fundraising. There's a discrepancy here. On Water For People's website, they have all their audited financial statements from 2005 to 2015. They also have all their IRS Form 990s from 2012 to 2016. They also have their IRS Form 1023 accessible from 1991, where they applied for recognition of tax exemption. They also have their 501(c)(3) document, containing a letter that confirms their tax exemption status from the Internal Revenue Service. On its website, the charity also has its own printed pamphlet, called "Behind the Numbers" from the years 2013 to 2015. The pamphlet explains what the money in the respective fiscal year was able to accomplish in project works around the world.

Overall, a mess. Axad12 (talk) 15:02, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi all -EAllen here - I am not trying to be a problem. I am trying to contribute meaningfully. I am the former CEO of Water For People. The page is/was very outdated and I was trying to update it and make it more factual. Wanting to help and appreciate your guidance to do so in an appropriate way.

For Flourishing, the page doesn't mention workplace flourishing. I think it is a missing element on the flourishing page. I did get some copy from SHAPE, a company I respect in this space. Happy to tone it down to not make it sound like marketing text and more factual. Appreciate the guidance. EAllen04 (talk) 16:57, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

When you say I did get some copy from SHAPE, a company I respect in this space. Happy to tone it down to not make it sound like marketing text are you basically admitting to having attempted a large scale copyright violation?

Also, I see very clear offwiki evidence suggesting a degree of association between yourself and SHAPE. Given that you appear to have cut and pasted material from SHAPE into Wikipedia, material that you accept sounded like marketing text, maybe it would be best if you were to disclose your conflict of interest there? Axad12 (talk) 17:21, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Your edits here [32], here [33] and here [34] were clearly blatant adverts for SHAPE.

To suggest that you are Happy to tone it down isn’t really going to get us anywhere. There is no place for this kind of promotionalism on Wikipedia, no matter how much it is toned down. These edits were not, as you claim, adding detail to an element of Flourishing that was previously not covered. They were very blatant adverts for a specific company.

I note that you also made a large promotional edit [35] back in March 2024 to the article for B Lab, another organisation where off wiki evidence suggests some degree of association. The edit including material such as Notable B-Lab certified corporations: There are thousands of certified B Corps all around the world. You can search the database to find a B Corp here. There are many famous brands including: [...]

In fact, looking at your edit history, is it fair to say that it relates primarily to adding promotional material to articles where you have a conflict of interest (including apparent self-promotion, here [36])? Axad12 (talk) 17:52, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

I note also a previous note [37] left on your talk page back in March this year, observing that editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Under the circumstances some explanation is surely required on why you recently felt it wise to add material such as SHAPE Global Ltd is a leading advocate for the research and application of organizational flourishing. Contributing to multiple groups such as Harvard University’s Flourishing at Work and AI for Human Flourishing, as well as IWBI WELL standard, SHAPE is linking the importance of flourishing to regulatory as well as academic communities globally. That is obvious marketing copy re: SHAPE and has nothing to do with the topic of the article. I could give further examples, but hopefully that suffices for now... Axad12 (talk) 18:06, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Leyla Kuliyeva

• Leyla Kuliyeva (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• User publisher wiki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User publisher wiki has made two sets of changes to this article. The first, which I reverted, was promotional in tone and either unsourced or referenced to primary sources. The second, which I also reverted, was unsourced. Another editor posted on the user's Talk page about CoI, and I followed up with a direct question, to which User publisher wiki responded I have the information and giving concerns about the grammar, quality and brevity of the article. They have now posted on the article's Talk page saying, in part, I have been assigned to create a page for this individual with all the relevant information. This article either needs to be properly edited or deleted and replaced with a new one, as it does not adhere to Wikipedia's standards. If this is not addressed promptly, we will need to notify Wikipedia's legal department to take further action. Tacyarg (talk) 10:33, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Their last comment has now earned them a {{uw-legal}} warning. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 15:32, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

There have been quite a lot of problems with this article since it was created. All of the problematic activity clearly derives from a single previously blocked user, evidence as follows...

The article was originally created in Feb '22 by virtual SPA user:TheWeldere who took the article to this rather odd (but very long) version [38] before their work began to be reverted (and the article was taken back to very short stub status).

The user was then blocked for sockpuppetry [39].

Then in Sept '22 user:Dmarketingchamp attempted to create a new article for Leyla Kuliyeva (despite the fact that one already existed). This was turned down at AfC. The user placed their new version of the article on their talk page, here [40]. It is obviously the version that was favoured by the work of a user with an identical agenda to that of the blocked user TheWeldere. Then in Jan '23 Dmarketingchamp cut and pasted their version into the existing article, here [41]. So, this was obvious apparent block evasion and sockpuppetry by the user of the TheWeldere account.

Then in Nov '24 the present account appeared and attempted to create a new article for Kuliyeva (is this sounding familiar?). This was again turned down at AfC (twice this time). The user then implemented their preferred version within the current article, here [42]. So, same story as above.

This version is different to the previous version that the earlier accounts attempted to implement, but is very likely from the same hand.

The behavioural evidence of users trying to create complete replacement articles indicates obvious sockpuppetry and block evasion, as per WP:DUCK. Axad12 (talk) 17:01, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

@Axad12: Are you going to file a report at SPI? --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 03:31, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

I would, but I don't know how to. If you feel an SPI is required, would you be prepared to do the honours and simply link to the evidence above? If so it would be much appreciated. Axad12 (talk) 05:11, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Just a note to say that the user seems to be restricted to communicating with extensive AI produced material, as can be seen in recent discussions at their talk page [43] and at the Leyla Kuliyeva talkpage [44]. The user even parroted back one of my responses (here:[45]), presumably due to cut and paste error while putting an earlier question into Google Translate. Axad12 (talk) 12:31, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

User publisher wiki now blocked by Izno as an advertising only account (and for wasting people's time on their user page, as per the SPI: [46]). Axad12 (talk) 20:45, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

South College

• South College (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Amanda Woodward Burns (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

In a previous edit, this editor used an edit summary that indicates that they work for the college: "We needed to update our number of programs we offer, update the 2023 stats to include CBE programs. Also correct a few grammatical issues." I placed a standard paid editing warning on their User Talk page in May. They have not yet responded to the warning but they continue to edit the college's article. ElKevbo (talk) 22:00, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

An once of good faith might be due, just from the standpoint that you warned them last time and they stopped. Then 7 months later they come back, probably don't remember seeing the first warning, and then get two more today after they stopped editing again. Not that this isn't a problem, but I'd probably wait for them to edit again in the next day or two, and then if they do perhaps a hammer needs to come down. Another possibility might be to report per WP:REALNAME. TiggerJay (talk) 05:08, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

In fairness, various promotional accounts have been editing that article since at least 2019. For example, this promotional edit [47] with edit summary Update at the request of the college. That user was blocked as an advertising only account.

Then we have this exchange from 2020 [48], where another user admits to working for the college in a marketing capacity and is asked not to edit the article.

Then later that year this user [49] edited the article, later blocked as WP:NOTHERE.

Then user SPA from 2021 [50] whose promotional edits were reverted later that day.

Then this user from 2023 [51], who made 1 edit before being notified of the WP:UPE policy.

And then the current user, whose first edit indicated that they work for the college, and who was notified of the relevant policy back in May.

So, let's not be under any illusion that this college has been directly editing the article for many years, receiving repeated push back in that regard, and is well aware that such activity is contrary to policies and guidelines. Axad12 (talk) 23:44, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

That does appear consistent with what I've found, but also let's be real, given the spread of these edits, and their limited scope, even blocking this account isn't going to provide a different outcome. Because, as you noted, there have been multiple accounts, and even blocking those accounts isn't making a difference. A large reason for this, I believe, is that college is full of well intentioned, technically versed students who are going to introduce SPAM, but also, there is a huge rotation employees - most people who edit these sorts of pages on college will not be working there two years later. This is different from a company or individual. That doesn't mean that we ignore it. But my point is, once a notice has been issued, they go away, a block will not make any reasonable difference here except make someone doing AIV patrolling feel better. This doesn't mean that I'm light on abuse, but rather, that I believe that we should be more concerned with actual outcomes versus the appearance of just following the process. TiggerJay (talk) 00:56, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

You say once a notice has been issued, they go away, but in this case the user has continued their editing beyond a notice (which is why they ended up here).

You also say that the college is full of well intentioned, technically versed students who are going to introduce SPAM, but as far as can be ascertained (from the accounts' own statements) the accounts originated from employees of the college and from marketing companies employed by the college.

Under those circumstances it's entirely reasonable to assume that those working for the college are aware of the past failures to install promotional content and that they are simply returning to the article once a year or so in the vain hope that no one is looking any more.

You also note that you don't feel a block would be worthwhile - but when an account exists solely for advertising or promotion, and continues beyond a notice, a block is a fairly standard response in accordance with policy (although in this case I don't see that anyone has actually called for a block anyway).

Note also the relatively recent promotional edit here [52], done by an IP address (quite possibly the user named at the top of this thread, or else clearly someone with an identical agenda). That edit (done under a misleading edit summary) was swiftly reverted on the basis that it was promotional.

The named user has been referred to WP:COI and to WP:PAID and any further continuation of the same agenda can only be construed as blatant breaches of policies and guidelines. That's all the more the case given how easy it is to follow the COI edit request process.

The general long term pattern of behaviour seen in this case is actually alarmingly common on the articles for schools and colleges. Blocking is often the only way to get the attention of such editors. Axad12 (talk) 03:57, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm not against a block, but I'm simply suggesting that it will simply be a case of WHACKAMOLE and that using warning templates will likely result in the same case of editing every few months from various accounts. The only real way to keep colleges protected is to use page protection, which might be a better option. TiggerJay (talk) 17:12, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't disagree, but when I've tried to get page protection in the past I've often found that (a) this level of disruptive editing wouldn't be judged sufficient to justify protection (they sometimes refer requesting editors back to COIN for this sort of thing), and (b) when protection is applied it's usually only for a time period that wouldn't be much use if the promotional edits only seem to occur once a year or so.

Clearly this isn't an ideal state of affairs, but I can understand why volunteers at WP:RPPI wouldn't want to apply long term protection and thus prevent new good faith non-promotional editors from being able to edit a page. That sort of solution is only going to be a good idea on articles with endemic vandalism issues.

Ideally engaging with COI editors is the way to encourage them to use the COI edit request process, but most promotional editors simply don't engage at their talk page. Axad12 (talk) 17:38, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Ivan Lagundžić

• Ivan Lagundžić (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Ivan Lagundzic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

One to keep an eye on. This appears to be an autobiography. See the page history of Draft:Ivan Lagundžić. The user doesn't really communicate and most of their edits seem to be to force the article into mainspace (in spite of it being moved out of there due to WP:COI concerns) or talk space - see history at Talk:Ivan Lagundžić. As they have been abusing the function, it may be worth restricting their ability to move articles if their poor behaviour continues. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:32, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

And he has done it again. He really will stop at nothing to get himself an article on here, it would seem. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:38, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

I have partially blocked them from page moves. PhilKnight (talk) 22:43, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:48, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

This Day on Bella Disu

I am trying to cut promotional content from Bella Disu. This Day seems like a "reliable source". However, looking at the content they've published, I'm concerned that this newspaper may have a conflict of interest when it comes to her/her billionaire family.

• A Daughter in a Million: The Amazing Exploits of Belinda Disu in Busines
• Super Woman…When Bella Adenuga Stormed Kigali In A Grand Style
• France Honours Bella Disu with Prestigious National Honour
• Abumet Nigeria Appoints Belinda Ajoke Disu Chairman
• Mike Adenuga Centre: Another Promise Kept!

In fact, many of the sources used in the article seem like the kind of thing a billionaire in a country like Nigeria probably paid someone to write but I am not sure how to handle this. 🄻🄰 08:40, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Maybe best to raise the issue at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard (WP:RSN). Users there may be able to confirm your concerns or perhaps could point you in the direction of a list of WP:RS and non-RS sources within the Nigerian media. Hope this helps. Axad12 (talk) 12:25, 16 December 2024 (UTC)