Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard

Welcome to Conflict of interest Noticeboard (COIN)
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 does not meet a requirement of the Conflict of Interest guideline. A conflict of interest may occur when an editor has a close personal or business connections with article topics. An edit by a COIN-declared COI editor may not meet a requirement of the COI guideline when the edit advances outside interests more than it advances the aims of Wikipedia. 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. Sections older than 14 days archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.
Click here to purge this page
(For help, see Wikipedia:Purge)
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.
  • Be careful not to out other editors by posting personal information here. Wikipedia's policy against harassment takes precedence over the COI guideline. If private information is needed to resolve COI editing, and if the issue is serious enough to warrant it, editors can email with the evidence, or email any functionary for advice. Functionaries and members of the Arbitration Committee will review private evidence and take any necessary action.
  • 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 does not meet 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:Requested edits is where COI editors have placed the {{Request edit}} template:

Miss India AustraliaEdit

This user edits in the area of Miss India Australia articles, beginning with removing mostly references from Miss India Australia (Raj Suri). Afterwards going to merging, copy-paste moving. This is a conflict of interest issue, as based on their username they seem to be affiliated with a competitor beauty pageant (Miss India Australia (Touch the Soul))/being the founder of it. There has not been a reaction to the concerns raised on the user's talkpage. NJD-DE (talk) 19:02, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

I correct: there now has been a reaction by removing this report here and blanking the talk page. Doesn't really reduce the concerns though. NJD-DE (talk) 19:13, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
Shenanigans have been going on at those articles for years. An account User:Reenakoak originally wrote it in 2015 and after much reverting and fixing by various editors, back in June 2018 [1]- a couple of now dead spa accounts [2] (note Hindi Guarav is the name of an Australian Indian newspaper that sponsors an event called "Opera miss/mrs/mr india global - no idea if its either one of these pageants) and [3] were trying to take over the "touch the soul." pageant article. There is some weird stuff going on that I cant quite understand...
User:Nephelae "recreated?"[4] the article in 2018, and made a disambiguation page for both articles called "Miss India Australia" [5]. Renakoav MIA then tried to take over the "Miss India Australia" page on 29th December. Nephelae then redirected both articles, copy pasting them both together onto the Miss India disambiguation page. So its all a bit confusing. Curdle (talk) 15:59, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
It is quite confusing indeed! Also, unclear who has been trying to hijack which article and might've wanted to discredit the other. Definitely, this copy-paste merge is not ideal. I think either should be reverted to the original stage, or at least copied the full version of each article and then cleaned up. The Raj Suri/not Reena Koak section lost some content in the "merge". And one might also ask the question why the two sections are not ordered alphabetically .. NJD-DE (talk) 02:09, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

As per your concerns. The content not copied over was more ad-based and irrelevant to the encyclopaedic nature, references were to self and not external sources (the page had a history of unreferenced/poorly referenced content). However, if you think the information is relevant and should be added then this is something that should occur. I simply copied & pasted the information as per the previous disambiguation page which listed Koak then Suri in last name alphabetical order. When I copied the table over, I copied the table that had been edited and not the most updated table - hence the references. Which have now been readded from a previous copy. However, if the alphabetical issue is a major concern, you may re-list on first name alphabetical basis. I did find 3 more pageants in Australia named 'Miss India Australia' however, they were not notable enough to add to the disambiguation page. Furthermore, I suspect editing & hijacking will continue occurring, I personally agree with NJD-DE in copying the article over in full and cleaning up, but keeping both in the same page.User talk:Nephelae — Preceding undated comment added 13:09, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Andrew T. LevinEdit

The subject of the article has made a few edits to the article here. I reverted it due to the COI and because many references were removed. Could someone else take a look at the edits to see if they are actually ok and if they can be unreverted?  Bait30  Talk 2 me pls? 04:19, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Bait30, it looks a good faith case to me. There is no problem with disclosure since the connection is obvious. I pointed the user to the {{Request edit}} template. I don't think there's any action to take here other than waiting and see if the user is willing to requests edits in the talk page... MarioGom (talk) 17:45, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
MarioGom, yeah there wasn't anything malicious or disruptive, just wanted to get a second opinion.  Bait30  Talk 2 me pls? 20:07, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
Just a quick follow up: Andrew understood the disclosure requirements and filed an edit request at Talk:Andrew T. Levin, which is now pending answering. Solved at the moment. Best, --MarioGom (talk) 17:51, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

A1 BelarusEdit

This user seems to be tied to the telecom provider. Global edits show 90%+ edits on all Wikipedias about A1/Velcom itself ( Criticism of the provider supported by reliable sources tend to be deleted or toned down.

Matt SmithEdit

Matt Smith is a user that joined Wikipedia in 2015, and their user page shows that they live in Taiwan. The relevance behind their supposed location has shown that it appears that Matt has a serious conflict of interest with articles relating to Taiwan. Over the course of 5 years editing on-off on Wikipedia, Matt's edits have focused almost exclusively on articles relating to Taiwan and their independence movement. In addition, they seem to have a pro-Japanese view of Japan's rule on Taiwan.

In addition to this almost single-purpose approach, they seem to have a contentious political leaning for the Republican Party in the United States, judging by their edit summaries during the recent 2020 presidential election. And while anyone's political position is (I assume) welcomed on Wikipedia, no matter how controversial it may be, Some examples from the diffs that I'm going to show is quite concerning for an established editor.


  • [6] Matt mentioned on their edit summary that CNN is "false news", despite the fact that according to WP:RSPSOURCES, CNN is a reliable source.
  • [7] Matt then subsequently doubled down with another summary claiming that information regarding the GSA (General Services Administration) acknowledging Biden's win and starting the transition process was "false info", despite the fact many reliable sources mentions it, such as CBS and NPR.

Other miscellaneous info:

  • Their WP:OWN behavior on articles such as Retrocession Day dating back to 2016, if you look at the revision history. One such example is this, when Matt reverted a user named Taekhosong, who removed a contentious sentence added by Matt himself, despite the fact that it was unverified and Taekhosong was well within their means to remove it as per WP:V and WP:OR.
  • Changing the word from "Japan ceded" to "Japan handed. Matt claims that this was a WP:NPOV violation. While which China the island Japan returned is in dispute, the term "ceded" is not, in accordance to the Treaty of San Francisco. The term was also used for Korea, as well as many islands in the Pacific.
  • Similar to the example above, Matt removed a contribution made by Mistakefinder claiming that "It (Taiwan cession) is in dispute so should not be included", weirdly enough however, they kept 1895's cession to Japan in place.

Conclusion: There are probably many more diffs to point out, but this is just the general idea which I feel should warrant some discussion. Furthermore, Matt was previously warned and blocked for their long term non-neutral contributions and edit warring in 2017, but it seems like this has not likely changed anything since. While I'm not saying they should be blocked again or anything, but being recused from such topics seems appropriate from what I've gathered so far. John Zillerson (talk) 16:04, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

John Zillerson, conflict of interest in relation to which organization or person? Bias is not COI. Also "Taiwan" is an extremely broad topic to be considered SPA or suspicious of COI. This looks like a content dispute or a behavioral dispute at most, but I fail to see a COI issue here. MarioGom (talk) 17:36, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
@John Zillerson:
  • People who understand Retrocession Day know it is in dispute. The sentence I added is simply the summary of the "Controversy" section in that article. And the sentence also links to that section (with [[#Controversy|in dispute]]), which already has many sources and is not unverified. It appears to me that you didn't know much about the topic and didn't check the sentence carefully before bringing this up.
  • The Treaty of San Francisco never says Japan cedes Taiwan to a specific country. I will not discuss the treaty in detail here. This again shows you don't really understand the topic before bringing it up.
  • Having done maybe just 11 or 12 dissident edits/reverts, across 3 or 4 articles, during 3-4 days and not violating 3RR should in no way be described as "long term edit warring". In my opinion, my 2017 block was done with an exaggerated reason and was the result of an editor's instigation to the admin. Anyway, I think such an old block history is not a good reason against me here because I have not engaged in that kind of edit warring since then.
  • I agree with MarioGom that this case is content dispute or a behavioral dispute at most, not conflict of interest. --Matt Smith (talk) 22:53, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
  • "I agree with MarioGom that this case is content dispute or a behavioral dispute at most, not conflict of interest." Of course you do. Now I'm new to Wikipedia, and perhaps the WP:COIN might not necessarily be the appropriate place (I originally thought its more of a conflict of interest for various topics, probably more suited for WP:AN or WP:ANI) but it does not negate the point that I'm bringing up here. Furthermore, you still have not fully addressed the diffs I had mentioned, especially on the 2020 United States presidential election where you consider reliable sources "false news", and why you removed Taiwan's cession to China (PRC or ROC, whatever it may be) but not dispute the one towards Japan. And that's exactly the reason why I had brought up your 2017 block where "failure to edit neutrally" was one of its reasons, as it seems like your behavior has hardly changed ever since. John Zillerson (talk) 00:24, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
Regarding the two diffs about the 2020 United States presidential election you are referring to, as I explained in my edit summaries in the two edits, I said CNN's report about the GSA's decision is fake news because the GSA clearly stated it does not certify winner while CNN contrarily reported that the GSA officially acknowledged Biden and Harris as the winners.
As for Taiwan, I changed the wording from "Japan ceded" to "Japan handed" because there is no treaty mentioning a cession in this case; I don't dispute the one towards Japan because Treaty of Shimonoseki explicitly mentioned a cession.
Let me know if anything is unclear. --Matt Smith (talk) 00:50, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Matt Smith, while this isn't a COI issue, it seems more like an NPOV issue. I'm not going to bother with the finicky details of Taiwanese affairs; I'll focus on the GSA material. You may have conflated the ascertainment of the winner with the certification of the results. Where you have removed text stating that the GSA officially acknowledged Biden and Harris as the winners, that is not the same as the GSA certifying the results. The GSA does not have that power, like you said. The CNN source did not state that the GSA certified the results either. You have misinterpreted that source and the text you removed was correct. The GSA does have this power: the Presidential Transition Act states that [t]he terms "President-elect" and "Vice-President-elect" as used in this Act shall mean such persons as are the apparent successful candidates for the office of President and Vice President, respectively, as ascertained by the Administrator following the general elections. As an aside, I would like to point out that editors can edit war without crossing the WP:3RR line. Sdrqaz (talk) 02:02, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree that "certify" and "ascertain" are different. However, the context is needed for us to fathom the GSA's position. The GSA chief's open letter can be seen here. We see no explicit wording in the letter saying that she ascertained the winner or calling Biden "President-elect". Moreover, she in the letter also stated:
  • I did, however, receive threats online, by phone, and by mail directed at my safety, my family, my staff, and even my pets in an effort to coerce me into making this determination prematurely.
  • Instead, I strongly believe that the statute requires that the GSA Administrator ascertain, not impose, the apparent president-elect. Unfortunately, the statute provides no procedures or standards for this process, so I looked to precedent from prior elections involving legal challenges and incomplete counts.
  • The actual winner of the presidential election will be determined by the electoral process detailed in the Constitution.
My above extracts of her letter might still not able to provide the full story. I encourage you to read her letter. Based on what I saw in the letter, I cannot confidently conclude that she officially ascertained the winner. --Matt Smith (talk) 03:13, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
Matt Smith, I have read the letter. While there is no explicit wording that the Administrator is ascertaining the winner, there is nothing else that she can be doing. Under the Presidential Transition Act, the funds available can only be released when a president-elect is ascertained. If there is no president-elect that has been ascertained, there are no funds to be released. As the Administrator is releasing those funds, it is clear that Biden has been ascertained as President-elect. Quite frankly, the first bullet point you have raised is irrelevant. That does not affect at all whether the president-elect has been ascertained. The other two are too, but to lesser degrees. The second is just providing how she came to her conclusion and the third is just a statement of fact. The CNN source was correct in this instance, as the statute is clear. The funds could only be released because the Administrator had acknowledged Biden as President-elect. If she had not, she would have zero authority under the law to release the funds. Sdrqaz (talk) 03:34, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for your input. I respect your right to interpret her decision as an ascertainment. --Matt Smith (talk) 04:17, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
With all due respect, Matt Smith, there aren't differing interpretations. We as Wikipedia editors need to follow reliable sources. We are not allowed to make our interpretations from primary sources. As it states in WP:PRIMARY: Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. An editor of your experience should know that you need to be able to put aside any views you may hold on issues and simply follow what the reliable sources say. Sdrqaz (talk) 13:43, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
I was aware that the article would only accept the view of mainstream media in this case so I didn't continue to contest the said content. --Matt Smith (talk) 14:40, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Sdrqaz: while this isn't a COI issue, it seems more like an NPOV issue, then this is not the right venue to discuss it. Maybe some admin can close this thread? --MarioGom (talk) 17:46, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
    MarioGom, I wasn't the one who started the thread and was not the one making the complaint; you may have pinged the wrong editor. While I have (serious) NPOV concerns, I don't have any regarding COI. Sdrqaz (talk) 17:54, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
    Sdrqaz, yeah, sorry. I replied to you just because you were the last to join. Anyway, I guess everyone agrees that there's no COI issue. MarioGom (talk) 18:14, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Although I'm not intended to prolong this discussion, I would like to point out one misunderstanding and one inaccuracy in the Diffs wrote by the discussion opener John Zillerson because they affects my reputation negatively:

  • In the first bullet, he said “Matt mentioned on their edit summary that CNN is "false news", despite the fact that according to WP:RSPSOURCES, CNN is a reliable source." That is clearly not true. In that single edit of mine, what I mentioned in the edit summary is "This is CNN's false news.”, not "CNN is false news". In other words, I was only referring to the one specific news of CNN's as false, rather than referring to the entire CNN as false and not meeting WP:RSPSOURCES. So I think the first bullet was a misunderstanding, though it probably was unintentional.
  • In the second bullet, he said I claimed in my edit summary that “information regarding the GSA (General Services Administration) acknowledging Biden's win and starting the transition process was "false info"”. That is inaccurate because I did not mention the transition part. In my edit summary, the information I referred to as false is just the GSA's acknowledging Biden's win, not including the GSA's starting the transition process.

--Matt Smith (talk) 05:45, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Mulalo Doyoyo biographyEdit

Just came across this bio which looks like a resume and associated commercial articles. Both have been edited by a string of SPAs, sometimes on each others' heels like this. It's unlikely but possible I have a COI due to alma mater and will not be editing here. Could neutral parties have a look? - Bri.public (talk) 17:43, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

It looks like this was brought up at ANI at least once but I don't see any resolution. - Bri.public (talk) 17:48, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
The three accounts were set up within a month of each other, two within the space of a day. Given the focused article editing you are right that there seems a COI here, but it could also indicate socks or close personal association between the accounts. The photographs in the article were added to Commons by one of the article editors, and with no EXIF details could indicate copyright violation... I will look into this. Looking at your Admistrators' noticeboard link, and the relevant articles, problems seem to have abated, although it would be wise to keep an eye on the articles edited, and for any new accounts that might emerge. Acabashi (talk) 12:37, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
Update: one of the editors listed has removed the COI banner (previously added by Melcous), on the Mulalo Doyoyo article. I believe this is now a clear indication that Bri.public is correct, and that there is a significant editor problem with this article. I have added back the COI banner. Acabashi (talk) 10:29, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
@Bri.public:@Melcous:@220 of Borg:@Barek:@JBW:
Update: A response by one of the COI user accounts indicted above has been made at Talk:Mulalo Doyoyo#Response on COI of Mulalo Doyoyo Biography. To me there is now clear indication that these accounts constitute at least meat or probably even sockpuppetry. Acabashi (talk) 14:45, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
My intention was simply to advocate [8] is unusually direct for a COI editor. - Bri.public (talk) 17:34, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

It is most unfortunate that none of the editors who had concerns about this years ago saw fit to give the editors in question warnings about conflict of interest. Doing so can be beneficial in at least two ways: quite often a good faith editor who simply did not know of the relevant policies and guidelines may stop once they are informed of the situation; if there is bad faith or even indifference then since the editor is known to have been informed of the relevant matters then if they continue it is easier to deal with the situation than in the ambiguous situation where we simply don't know whether the editor knew how things were or not. In this case, Yyyj4 has acknowledged the conflict of interest and undertaken not to continue in the same way. I see no reason not to assume good faith, and it may well be that they would have stopped editing in unacceptable ways long ago had they been informed. I therefore don't see any need to do anything more about that account, provided they do keep to what they have said. Rduvvury confirmed his conflict of interest in a talk page message to Diannaa back in 2014. She answered him, addressing a copyright issue, but (unfortunately in my opinion) she didn't also take the opportunity to mention the conflict of interest issue too. However, since he hasn't edited since July 2015 there is no point pursuing that now. Cmoon100 is a very different matter. Not only has that editor never, so far as I have seen, admitted to the conflict of interest (which is totally blatant and unmistakable) but they have even denied the conflict of interest and tried to hide from view mention of it, as mentioned above by Acabashi. I have therefore blocked that account indefinitely. JBW (talk) 20:57, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Greg Downs (writer)Edit

I stumbled across the BLP article Greg Downs (writer), which has been relatively dormant over the years. The article seemed... Excessively self-indulgent, to say the least, so I took a look at the page's history. Lo and behold, it was created in 2006 by a user named User:Gdowns. Their entire contribution history consists of eight edits made in the span of two days, and every single one, coincidentally, is adding wikilinks to the subject's article wherever it could possibly fit on the English Wikipedia.

For more reasons than just the COI, the article is in need of serious attention to meet the project's quality standards. The references are a mess, because they're all just hypertext, there's no inline citations, and half the links are 404s; the structure of the prose is borderline incoherent, owing both to rhetorical flow being constantly hijacked to fawn over the subject and to a lack of sections; and any sort of encyclopedic tone is thrown out the window in favor of misusing the page as a personal bio. Even if we assume the subject meets notability criteria (the only thing I can think of at a glance is WP:AUTHOR 4(c), and even that seems debatable), the article needs to be massively reworked at best or blanked and restarted from scratch at worst, because this one definitely slipped through the cracks. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 19:11, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

TheTechnician27, I agree User:Gdowns appears to have a COI, but they have not been active since 2006. Another possible notability criterion is WP:ANYBIO 1. for winners of well-known and significant awards, as most Flannery O'Connor Award for Short Fiction winners seem to have articles. If no one wants to or is able to rewrite the article, speedy deletion criterion WP:G11 is available for "pages that are exclusively promotional and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to serve as encyclopedia articles". TSventon (talk) 00:09, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
TSventon – On the surface I would agree with you that the award seems to confer noteworthiness, but digging deeper, there are a few flaws with this premise:
1) The article on the award seems to have only one source, that being the University of Georgia Press itself. I could find no other notable coverage of the award, outside of this article from WPI, whose main focus isn't on the award itself, but more on the author and her work.
2) A substantial portion of those authors have won much more prestigious awards than just the Flannery O'Connor Award. For example, Ha Jin, Melissa Pritchard, Antonya Nelson (this one actually treats the award in question as so non-noteworthy that it's not even listed under her 'Selected awards'), Carole L. Glickfeld, Debra Monroe, T. M. McNally, etc.
3) The authors who do have this award as their most prestigious honor seem to be yet more articles that have slippd through the cracks, for example Paul Rawlins, an article whose creator's account is blocked for sockpuppetry and describes the subject as "bald" and "liking Whales". Similarly, Karin Lin-Greenberg is an article like Greg Downs' which – while possibly not a COI – reads very much like a personal bio.
While this is obviously an extreme example, and the O'Connor Award clearly has more credibility than this, I could thoroughly make up a literary award and confer it upon all of the greatest writers in history. If I then made an article about said award, how notable the people who received it are really doesn't matter, because my award clearly isn't the reason why they're notable. Meanwhile, it wouldn't be unrealistic to have a few recipients who aren't very notable but who have their own articles anyway, because anybody can create an article about anything, and often downright bad articles about non-notable BLP subjects slip through the cracks for over a decade.
Personally, I think this should be deleted, and if somebody wants to restart it from scratch, that's fine. I would keep the article in my sandbox for storage in case the article ever gets created or drafted again. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 01:55, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
This article has been through an AfD I was involved in, so I'll give an update for anyone reading COI/N right now, because the discussion is still open and un-archived. The article was sent to AfD, where reliable sources were found and it was radically rewritten; the article the complaint here was raised about bears little resemblance to its state at the time of writing. Great WP:HEY work. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 04:08, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Private evidence about paid editingEdit

I sent an email containing private information to paid-en-wp on 13 Dec 2020 according to the header of this noticeboard. I resent my email (slightly altered) to the same OTRS queue on 22 Dec 2020. I also sent a reminder to functionaries-en on 25 Dec 2020. Yet, I have not received any responses nor seen any reactions. I understand that contributing to Wikipedia is voluntary work, but considering that CU data are stored for only 90 days, I think some urgency is needed. Thanks 4nn1l2 (talk) 08:53, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

@4nn1l2: jut a heads up that third is a general noticeboard for COI issues, and the people who deal with private requests via do not necessarily monitor this page. Emailing them again is probably the best bet. Possibly (talk) 23:18, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
Feel free to post the article/s here however that you believe are the target of undisclosed paid editing in the meantime. Only in death does duty end (talk) 00:11, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
Does anyone read paid-en-wp at all? I wrote there early in 2020 and didn't receive any response either. --MarioGom (talk) 10:53, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
I think only functionaries can see that page (can someone confirm?), and we only have so many functionaries, and only a fraction of them are interested in paid editing cases I imagine. But this is just speculation. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 09:00, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
ProcrastinatingReader, in my case, what I sent early in 2020 was taken care elsewhere, so I thought I didn't receive any response because of that. In 4nn1l2 it might be just a matter of timing, since it might have overlapped with off-wiki time for most functionaries. But I wonder if it's not just our cases and the inbox is generally unresponsive. If that's the case, we have a problem, because it is advertised quite prominently here. If no one looks at it, then it will either a) cause some important UPE cases not be handled or b) induce users to publish private evidence on-wiki, "because that's what actually works". --MarioGom (talk) 09:22, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Li Chen (artist)Edit

Promotional edit histories at artists' biographies. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 05:31, 2 January 2021 (UTC)


On November 28, 2020 an anonymous person added a section "Episteme according to Giano Rocca" to the end of the article on Episteme. The section is a very long, very poorly-written screed of apparently personal opinion, citing no references. It does, however, leave a link to Giano Rocca's personal web page (

I think that this section should be removed as (1) useless and (2) almost certainly a case of blatant self-promotion. Stephen.R.Ferg (talk) 17:07, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

I have reverted the edit SRFerg which you also could have done without issue. Also note that this noticeboard requires you to notify any editor who you bring as the subject of discussion here. Thank you Melcous (talk) 00:47, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
The edits were made over a month ago, so I don't suppose there's much point in alerting the IP now. Still, I've blocked it for a week pour encourager les autres. Thank you for the alert, Stephen.R.Ferg. Bishonen | tålk 16:04, 3 January 2021 (UTC).

Udithamal HemachandraEdit

New author appears to be the subject of the article. Author has removed CSD tags three times from article.   // Timothy :: talk  02:47, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

The editor is continuing to remove deletion templates from the page. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 🎄 03:25, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
  Blocked – Udithamal is blocked 31 hours for removing AfD templates. EdJohnston (talk) 03:35, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Block is now indefinite, case closed. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 14:39, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Jeffery D. MolkentinEdit

Author of article is related to subject of article. Article has twice been moved from article space to draft space by reviewers, and has twice been moved back to article space by author, after being informed of conflict of interest policy. The question isn't primarily whether the subject passes academic notability as much as that the subject is tendentiously pushing the article back into article space. A partial block may be in order. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:33, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Jdmolkentin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) - @Robert McClenon: This account has posted on the article talk page, claiming to be the subject. SK2242 (talk) 19:15, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Thank you, User:SK2242 - Jdmolkentin, who is the subject, is in full compliance with conflict of interest guidelines. It is Rmolkentin, who is a relative, who is the issue. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:46, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Swan Communications UPEEdit

SwanComm13 today disclosed that they created the above articles under contract, but until now they they have not made any paid editing disclosures. After being advised of paid editing policie, they replied "I have created Articles for clients before and did not have to file a Disclosure. So I am curious if this is a new guideline, as well as there are many companies out there, that write Wikipedia articles for compensation." Their user page is missing the proper disclosure. There' an SPI open for a second account SwanComm707. Posting here so that the articles they made under UPE can be examined. Possibly (talk) 19:24, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

(non-admin comment) SwanComm13 has changed their name to Sam at Swancom13. Xtools [9] says Sam created George Gadson, and the article was speedly deleted under G11 on April 16, 2020. They have not edited other articles in the mainspace.
SwanCom707 has only edited Makeda Antoine-Cambridge in the mainspace. I edited the article and removed lots of text that I could not verify from unreliable sources. I tried to do a Google News search for better sources but did not find anything. I don't think the paid editing tag is necessary anymore but an editor might consider an AfD. Z1720 (talk) 23:02, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Gabriel RothblattEdit

Please note that there is a pending RfC at Talk:Gabriel Rothblatt regarding a possible COI. R2 (bleep) 21:27, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

I request for 1) editors to determine whether the COI tag can be removed from the top of the main article and 2) for editors to review the content of the article for possible COI and change anything that is not neutral and 3) to update the date the article was last checked for neutrality on the connected contributor template on the Talk page. Thank you. Waters.Justin (talk) 23:34, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi @Waters.Justin: (non-admin question) In the diff you posted at the RFC on Rothblatt's talk page [10] you said, Last year I emailed the political coordinator for SpacePAC to see if I can volunteer in supporting the election of Gabriel Rothblatt, the son of Martine Rothblatt. Did you end up volunteering for that campaign in any capacity, even for a short time? If it's a yes, I think that's a definite COI and you should only use the request edit template and the article will need another editor to assess the text. If not, I still think it is too close to a political COI: you were willing (even if the volunteering didn't happen) to do more than most citizens who vote for a candidate and actively help them get elected. I hope this is clarified below. Z1720 (talk) 00:32, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
I asked to volunteer for SpacePAC by looking up campaign laws. I only had online communication with the coordinator and it was very minimal. I only had a couple campaign questions to look up. In accordance with the rules of Super PACs, I was not able to coordinate or communicate with Gabriel Rothblatt in any way. I made the Wikipedia article independently without being asked by anyone after Gabriel lost his campaign, so it was not a campaign strategy. Waters.Justin (talk) 01:03, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
I will use the request edit template. Thank you for suggesting it. Waters.Justin (talk) 01:05, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
I'm glad that Waters.Justin added a COI template at the top of Rothblatt's talk page: I did not notice it before I posted my question. Z1720 (talk) 03:07, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Kafkas shoreEdit

I think Kafkas shore may be a UPE and I think at least a COI. Either way, Andrew Weinreich and Brian Collins (designer) could use a look/decrufting/GNG check. --Izno (talk) 06:32, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

@Izno: I notified Kafkas shore of this discussion, as required for this noticeboard. I also gave Andrew Weinreich the once over, and merged many refs. The content is your typical entrepreneur promotion, but it seems factual. The talk page message on Andrew Weinreich from Kafkas shore (who has not editied that page since march 2018) does seem a little odd. Possibly (talk) 01:58, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
@Izno: I also looked at Brian Collins (designer), which strikes me as 100% paid editing. Before I gave it a trim, it was massively refbombed with 140-odd references. That' would represent about 6hours of editing, assuming 4 minutes per ref. It's more likely something like two days of work. Not sure how to explain it, but the way the refs are used to bomb the article makes it look like classic paid editing. Possibly (talk) 02:49, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

K/DA pageEdit

So, this anonymous user, seemingly doesn't have an account "2001:d08:e3:86d4:b063:e860:55e7:3648" has been reverting edits with their false information on which artists voices a character. This user keeps doing it too many times now, not even providing a proper edit summary explaining their edit when what was on their edit is clearly false. I tried to revert them back to it's proper state accordingly based on which artist sings who, but they keep reverting it back without explanation. InTheLifeIChoose (talk) 07:25, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

@InTheLifeIChoose: what precisely is the conflict of interest issue? AllI can see is a conflict between editors. That kind of think should ideally discussed on the article's talk page rather than via edit comments. Possibly (talk) 08:21, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
@Possibly: ohhh... Thanks for the info, it's just this one anonymous user has been repeatedly reverting edits back to their own edits here. Anyways, thanks for the suggestion. (talk) 09:48, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
That is a content dispute, and not an issue for this noticeboard. Possibly (talk) 00:28, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Alexis StamatisEdit

This user, Alstamatis, has been repeatedly removing cited content, and just saying "deleted false accusations" in his edit summaries, without providing any actual proof, the username is also very similar to the subject of the article. And the reason why I added the IP is because, if you look at the page history, they had been doing the same thing as the user Alstamatis. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 07:09, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

@JurassicClassic767: you need to notify each user mentioned in your post, using the instructions at the top of this page. Possibly (talk) 07:23, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
@Possibly: Notified both of them. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 07:42, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Note that the article has very serious WP:BLP issues with dubious and creative sourcing. The user definitely has a point, and a strong one given our BLP policy. --MarioGom (talk) 10:48, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
@MarioGom: So, are you suggesting that we should remove the "criticism" section of the article, or just the references, though I did see you removed some probably unreliable references already. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 11:36, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
JurassicClassic767, no, just reviewing would do. Indeed, I already removed one reference to a blog and one irrelevant source. The others, however, are written in Greek. Even if I can check with Google Translate that they talk about the plagiarism case, I cannot verify whether the text in the article accurately describes the controversy. Alstamatis is welcome to provide other reliable sources about the topic or to provide clarification about current sources at Talk:Alexis Stamatis. MarioGom (talk) 11:43, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
@MarioGom: Ok then, so we should just leave it as it is for now? JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 12:42, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

-Alstamatis (talk) @alstamatis @ MarioGom @Dear sirs, i am following your conversation. Again, I repeat that these plagiarsim allegations for the novel Villa Combreux are false. They come from people who have a proffesional interest to hurt the writer Alexis Stamatis. I am currently writing some stuff about it . Where do you want me to send it? Thank you Alstamatis — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alstamatis (talkcontribs) 15:49, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Alstamatis, you can write it at Talk:Alexis Stamatis. In particular, we would need links to references about the topic and/or an explanation about what's wrong with current sources. MarioGom (talk) 16:06, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

@MarioGom @JurassicClassic767 I just did post a analytical piece with the appropriate links at Talk:Alexis Stamatis Please read it and you will understand the problem. Please remove the section Plagiarism allegations. Thanks you very much for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alstamatis (talkcontribs) 16:18, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Alan MikhailEdit

Accounts found via checkuser to be same user:

These accounts have similar names and all have in common that they remove reliably sourced content, and add CV style content to the page. It's not the end of the world to add an academic's research to their WP article, but it crosses into very problematic behavior when the accounts are scrubbing criticisms of an academic's work. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:31, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

The editor User:Newslinger appears to be familiar with at least one of these accounts, as they blocked them. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:33, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
When accounts look strongly like they are the same person, the quickest way to put an end to the funny business is sometimes a sockpuppet investigation. The SPI found that the above seven accounts were technically the same user. All blocked now, thanks Oshwah. Possibly (talk) 01:43, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
It does seem like the article had a bit of a "controversy-cleanse", as the content from the previously merged Selimgate article seems missing. I don't have the background to analyze the sources in this field though. Possibly (talk) 19:17, 8 January 2021 (UTC)


This is not just one article, or one user. I know that I am a IP editor, but, I have done these types of things in the past before I left wikipedia. Recently I came upon Wiki page creators, and that they are obviously violating our wp:COI policies, about undisclosed paid editing. Their website is wikipagecreator (dot) net, and wiki specialists's website is wikispecialistllc (dot) com and after talking to them for a while, the revealed that they are also Wiki specialists LLC. I can promise that it is not just these two here, because I have once dealt with one other paid editor ring here, and apparently, the person I talked to over the live chat was the same. Their portfolio's URL is https://wikispecialistllc (dot) com/portfolio/#1551187920620-3c9ad865-c1fb and their pricing page is here: https://wikispecialistllc (dot) com/lp-699/ I also asked them about why the pages are created by different people, and their answer was: "Obviously it is as per Wikipedia" Here is the transcript, with some parts removed to avoid violating wp:harassment:

Redacted redacted redacted redacted redacted redacted [01:52] them: Perfect let me quickly explain you the process so you may have an idea how things work on Wikipedia

[01:52] me: I would like to see if you have any samples that I can see

[01:52] them: As soon as the process will be started we will send you a basic questionnaire form which you have to fill and send back to us. We will first draft the content, then the Wikipedia moderator will edit and moderate the complete profile. Creating back links and hyperlinks connecting it with the different pages of Wikipedia which will take 3-4 weeks.

[01:52] them: Then we will submit the draft to the Wikipedia and then they will review it which will take 7-10 days time. Once approved it will go Live, but the job doesn't end here. It needs to be moderate for at least 3 months. Wikipedia will verify the complete details and will make sure someone is taking care of the page. Once everything is alright then the page would be there for a Life time. You just need to edit it timely, new records ecords, labels, awards etc etc.

[01:53] me: do you have any sample work I can see? redacted [01:53] them: https://wikispecialistllc(dot)com/portfolio/#1551187920655-c2457d17-4751 [01:53] me: thank you! [01:54] them: Click on above link to view some of our work [01:54] me: wait, doesn't editing your own page violate their conflict of interest policies? [01:54] them: No Because We will be doing so it will not violate Wikipedia guidelines redacted [01:55] them: We have our own team to do this job [01:55] them: https://wikispecialistllc(dot)com/lp-699 [01:55] them: Click on the above link to view our packages [01:55] them: The only main difference between the packages and prices is just the maintenance plan which means editing or updating information onto live profile [01:55] them: And the best part its just a onetime one off payment which means no monthly or any additional yearly charges with 100%satisfaction and guarantee [01:55] them: Once you go through the packages kindly let me know which package would you like to proceed with so I may get you started and assign you a project manager [01:55] me: which member of wikipedia *redacted*? [01:55] them: The project manager [01:56] me: and who will that be? [01:56] them: That will be assigned once you proceed with an order [01:56] me: oh also, looking at your portfolio, why are the pages created by different people? [01:57] them: There is no where mentioned that it's been created by different people [01:57] me: uhh, not according to wikipedia records...? [01:57] them: Obviously it is as per Wikipedia [01:57] me: and one last thing, where are you guys based of? [01:57] them: *redacted* redacted [01:58] them: Okay [01:58] me: thank you!

As you can evidently see, there are sock-puppets involved, and that from what I found, they are undisclosed. I think a global ban would be a good thing to be placed. I will be checking back on this IP later on. Thank you! Edit: If anyone here would be kind enough to help me format this, thank you very much! (talk) 02:28, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Update: I went ahead and searched them up. I found 16 other websites that are likely ran by the same people. I can confirm that because their terms of services are exactly the same, and they all have an image above a live chat feature that reads "From commonly known to famously known", or they have the same 70% off offer, and the same terms of service. I think they also blocked my ip from the live chat after the last time dealing with them (which was quite a while ago). I am near certain that this is Get Wikified, which is already in paid list

List of spin-offs of
Website Already in Wikipedia:PAIDLIST
https://createapage(dot)wiki No
https://wikiconsultant(dot)net Yes
https://wikipagemaker(dot)com Yes
https://wikipediapros(dot)com No
https://wikipagecreator(dot)org yes
https://wikicontributors(dot)net Yes
https://wikicreatorsinc(dot)com yes
https://wikipagewriting(dot)services Yes
https://wikieditors(dot)net Yes
https://wikipediallc(dot)com Yes
https://makeawikipage(dot)com No
https://makeawikipage(dot)net No
https://wikipagewriting(dot)com Yes
https://prowikicreators(dot)com Yes
https://wikispecialistllc(dot)com Yes
https://onlinewikipublishers(dot)com No

Also, the paid list needs to be recategorized, because all of the company I listed above are all spin-offs of get wikified.

Also, I got a account and is now editing under ThatIPEditor (talk) . ThatIPEditor (talk) 21:47, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Another update: I contacted them again, and they answered the live chat. I think they figured out that I am helping out here, and because in the past, I edited under IP, I think they stopped answering me again. It would be amazing if someone here can help out and take a look at the sites, and see if you can find anything there. I am going out to a coffee shop and see if it is a IP ban. ThatIPEditor (talk) 22:55, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

  • I have added the articles mentioned in the portfolio for Wiki specialists linked above. Let's bear in mind though that paid editors have five million articles to choose from that they can say are their work. Listing them here does not necessarily mean they are paid editing; for example this might be (no offense IP) an attempt to squelch the work of a competitor. Possibly (talk) 03:03, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
@Possibly: No offence taken, because I can totally understand your concern. But please do assume good faith. I do agree that I think some of the article they claimed to have created not seem like theirs, because one of them were created by a quite-established editor. (talk) 03:37, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
While no doubt they are touting for business and engaged in paid editing, the articles they claim on their website are highly suspicious, and a number are clearly not their work. Just for 3 examples, articles claimed by them but created by long-term legitimate editors: Brandon Anderson (entrepreneur) was created by Jesswade88; Vahdah Olcott-Bickford was created by Andrew Davidson; and Kiwi Campus was created by Yngvadottir. Melcous (talk) 04:44, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
I was going to say ... I certainly didn't create Kiwi Campus out of any conflict of interest. The impetus for my creating it was seeing a news article about their bot that caught fire on the Berkeley campus (quite possibly on the BBC, but it may have been on one of the San Francisco Chronicle websites. I recall that when I last checked on the article, I found someone had red-linked the founder, which was a bit ambitious but hardly grounds for payment. I updated it and haven't checked it since. If it's been overwritten by promotional text, that's annoying and I trust someone will revert, but I'm confident of the company's notability based on what I used to create the article. Wow, is there a user box for "This editor's work is so good, it's been claimed as paid on an external website"? Yngvadottir (talk) 05:05, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Well, surely, there should be one! (talk) 05:29, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Also, I am fully certain that this company is run by the same people as Wikiprofessionals INC, which have already received a site ban over at wp:an a few months ago (talk) 05:44, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Note that cheap UPE operations often advertise as their own work articles that are created by other people. I can't find the link, but I'm pretty sure that in recent years we identified this kind of advertisement. It's worth reviewing and monitoring them though. --MarioGom (talk) 11:30, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
    I've received an email from the IP editor with a slightly less redacted version of the transcript. This definitely looks like wikiprofessionals, but friendly reminder that this firm often claims articles as their own even if they had nothing to do with them, so take anything they say with a grain (or bucket) of salt. GeneralNotability (talk) 17:18, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
  • The Wikispecialist page says "Have A Look At Our Clientele" but their extract from my article starts "Vahdah Olcott-Bickford (October 17, 1885 – May 18, 1980)". They don't seem to explain how someone who died twenty years before Wikipedia started would be a client of theirs. As the readership figures for my article are tiny, it doesn't seem that many people are reading this advertising. Anyway, the company has previously been discussed here and nothing much seems to have changed. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:35, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
@Andrew Davidson: I just have added a couple more companies that is not on the paidlist ThatIPEditor (talk) 01:01, 10 January 2021 (UTC)


This user seems to have a relationship with G2A. The user has made a total of 9 edits that weren't on the G2A article since April 2020, 2 of which were to my talk page. Might be worth looking into. Padgriffin Griffin Noises 17:12, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

(Non-admin comment) I believe JohnnyRonan has added promotional material to the article on Sept 28 [11] Aug. 12 [12] and Aug. 7 [13]. JR has continued to edit the article this week. I posted a new message on their talk page, asking if they have been paid to edit the article. If this is inappropriate, please inform me and I will avoid doing this in the future. Z1720 (talk) 18:26, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
(Non-admin comment) @JohnnyRonan: has declared a COI with G2A [14]. I recommended on their talk page that they use the request edit template when editing G2A and avoid directly editing the article. I have also added a paid contributions tag to the top of the article and a Template:Connected contributor (paid) banner to the top of G2A's talk page. Z1720 (talk) 03:15, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Ron GutmanEdit

Blatant promotion, as well as whitewashing of sourced negative information. TAF12 claims to have no conflict of interest, yet they somehow uploaded a photo of one of his awards as their "own work". I'm done wasting time with this editor. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 03:21, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Happy New Year. When I was doing my detailed research for this article, I was diligently adding references to validate all of the facts I found through various sources. When I had found information about this award, I couldn't find a reference for this, so I reached out to the subject of the article and asked for proof, and he provided me with this picture as evidence and the permission to post it. TotoroAndFriends12 (talk) 04:14, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
So it is not, as you asserted, your own work? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:49, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Subject does not look particularly notable, so sent to AfD. TAF12's editing on this article strongly resembles professional or pomotional editing (for example see this version after a 20K addition by TAF12). Possibly (talk) 04:29, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Rideshare Drivers UnitedEdit

Could someone take a look at Rideshare Drivers United where a new editor has removed info about a US company and replaced it with an advert for an Australian company of the same name. — Rod talk 19:05, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

I reverted to an earlier version, and reported the username at WP:UFAA. Possibly (talk) 19:34, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Well,they came back with another bad username User:Aursdu and are now edit warring to maintain their preferred promotional version, removing a half dozen source as they do so. A username block or Pblock for the article would be appreciated. Possibly (talk) 03:00, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
And another: Rsduau11. Possibly (talk) 08:52, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
I blocked the latest two accounts and semi-protected the article for a month. Fences&Windows 19:18, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

The above accounts apparently represented Rideshare Drivers United in Australia, which has the same name as Rideshare Drivers United in California. From the edits, it looks like the Aussies were trying to say they are the one and only. For the moment I have renamed the article asRideshare Drivers United (California) as they are definitely notable. Have not found enough sourcing for Rideshare Drivers United (Australia) yet. Possibly (talk) 20:12, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Inspire ChurchEdit

(I've moved this over from the NPOV noticeboard where I posted it a couple of days ago, as I didn't have a response there.) Could do with a hand with this one. I have twice reverted non-neutral descriptions of the church's activities: firstly in sections here, here and here, and then in a bunch here. I have posted on Fzx998's talk page about neutral language and that the use of language such as "Featured at iKonf are loads of prize giveaways, games, music, inspiring teaching + a VIP lunch for Children’s Pastors and leaders" and "In over a decade, Intensifire has gained huge momentum in seeing the lives of young people across the nation impacted and changed for the better" suggests that they could have a conflict of interest. User has not replied and has reverted my changes. If anyone is able to engage with this user or to suggest other action that would be helpful. Thanks. Tacyarg (talk) 21:07, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

I gave it a large trim. Someone does seem to be trying to promote a specific viewpoint, as one of the things I cut was a large quote from a church press release. The quote itself had, weirdly, inline references for the individual points it was making. Possibly (talk) 22:03, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry and UPEEdit

some of the articles created

An SPI that I requested on suspicion of UPE has produced positive checkuser results on Shroudymeatballs & Williamsdoritios. Uninvolved editors are invited to inspect User:Williamsdoritios/sandbox for potential UPE under development. The contents kind of speak for themselves; here's a sampling:

IFly is a Chain [sic] of indoor skydiving centers...
Jay Spencer Love was an Americsn [sic] businessman, philanthropist, and the founder and President of...
Tony Zhang is the chief strategist on...
1000 Trees is a mixed used real estate project...

Doritos was a prolific article creator; some look possibly legit (20th century art and such) but some ... not. Listed a smattering above. Have fun ☆ Bri (talk) 04:01, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

hi @Bri: I am looking at some of the articles. Some, like the recent Resonating Life in the Acorn Forest and Nicola De Maria look to be too sloppy to be UPE. Is there any more background info beyond the two accounts being socks? The master account Shroudymeatballs only made 70 or so edits, all recently, that don't look promotional. It might help to hear specifically why Williamsdoritios is UPE? Possibly (talk) 04:31, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Shroudymeatballs has some notes on what I found. Not much beyond that, I'm afraid – I haven’t dug much on this amd was hoping others could put it together. The sockpuppet was created July 2020 so I would look for suspicious stuff from that point on. ☆ Bri (talk) 04:49, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
I looked at thelast 500 or so edits, and ran Xtools on their contribs. I'm not sure why they set up a sock account to go after Michael Mandiberg, both of which were an unfortunate decision. That said, I think their main interests seem to be updating bio articles based on death reports, and adding to art coverage. I don't think there is any UPE going on here. See the Xtools pages edited report. It looks way too much like a hardcore wiki editor to be UPE. Possibly (talk) 04:56, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
Comment from an uninvolved editor. There seems to be some overlapping patterns between the topics, editing times and style/tone of comments left on AfDs between Williamsdoritos and User:Masterknighted. Masterknighted's account was blocked for sockpuppetry on Dec. 22, 2017, and their last edit was made on Dec. 27, 2017. Williamsdoritos account was created about a week later on Jan. 5, 2018. They both are prolific art article creators, and interestingly they both edited a lot on these types of list pages: (year) in art (for example 2019 in art); (year) in architecture; and Deaths in (year). Their AfD styles are similar, both frequently do not use a period before their signature and also frequently there is no space between the last character and the signature. Neither used edit summaries frequently. The times of day they edit are almost identical. This could all be coincidental and I'm imagining pattern similarities, but I think there might be a possibility that Williamsdoritos is another manifestation of Masterknighted. Netherzone (talk) 16:50, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Just updating this case to note that about 48 hours ago, Williamsdoritios was marked by administrator Fences and windows as a sock of Masterknighted [15]. ☆ Bri (talk) 22:05, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
@Bri:I guess that makes sense. I just tracked down the thread for their original block, and they do sound like the same user. I'm still perplexed at the gnomish things they were doing and the possibility that this was a cover for paid editing. Possibly (talk) 22:26, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, I forgot to note it here. There wasn't an SPI, I went off the evidence presented here and WP:DUCK. Fences&Windows 22:34, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
I looked at
which were all OK and should not be G5'd. Matt Starr (visual artist) and Reich Richter Pärt are marginally OK, notability-wise. The biggest issue with these was WD frequently did not fill in their refs! If WD was doing paid work, the business people, young actors and chefs would seem to be the only potential paying clients. The articles on paintings, sculptures and artists that I looked at had no promotion. Possibly (talk) 01:56, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

World Vision IndiaEdit

User claims that they do not have a COI, though they seem to be attempting to turn the article into something of a company website. This is how they've we rewritten the article:
"With over seven decades of experience at the grassroots, World Vision India employ proven, effective development, public engagement and relief practices empowering vulnerable children and communities living in contexts of poverty and injustice to become self-sufficient and bring lasting change". Speaks for itself.
"we have been there within hours, responding to the immediate needs of those affected and helping families rebuild their lives." - note the use of 'we'
"we empower vulnerable and high-risk communities to resist, absorb, accommodate to and recover from the effects of a hazard in a timely and efficient manner." Promotional material
Please see the revision before I reverted their edits: here.
Thanks, Pahunkat (talk) 20:29, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

It's unambiguous copyvio from Fences&Windows 20:01, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Zeyan ShafiqEdit

Hello sir, i am mutahir and i am basically from kashmir, i have started my wikipedia journey recently,i am a quick learner and i have learned a lot of things related to wikipedia till now. i am trying to create wikipedia articles for notable persons from Kashmir since they dont have enough presence on wikipedia but they are very notable. i started by creating Draft:Zeyan Shafiq which was unfortunately declined for (Adv) and since i approached the subject myself to gain some more information(for eg: his current academic information,his current living location and other information the reviewers might have thought that it is a (COI) but it is not a (COI) i am planning to create wiki pages for all those kashmiri people who meet the wikipedia notability guidelines(So for getting more info to make my article very accurate and good i might even contact the subjects of next articles as well,This shouldn't be called as COI) because i dont think anyone from kashmir is trying to do this, i reviewed my first draft Draft:Zeyan Shafiq and understood what (adv) actually meant, i had given very less information and it looked like an advertisement. i later researched again and edited all the incomplete information myself and i wrote down everything in brief, i am a new editor here so i might do more mistakes but i don't have anyone to guide me properly, if you can assist me and tell me what is wrong in my article now, i would really work more hard on those issues and i will correct them. the only reason why i am requesting this help is because my article got declined but i wasn't guided on how do i improve it properly. my reviewer gave me reason and i followed it but i don't still understand where i am lacking and i want to improve it. thanks sir

Hums4r (talk) 22:35, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

OP cross-posted this topic at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Draft:Zeyan Shafiq Need Admin Help regarding editing and publishing. He has already gotten responses there, so there is no need for any discussion here.
@Hums4r: Please don't post the same request for help in multiple forums. This is referred to on Wikipedia as "forum shopping", and is considered bad practice. While I'm sure this is just a beginner's mistake, please keep it in mind for the future. Thank you. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 05:14, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
@Drm310: I’m extremely sorry for this, i will certainly try to avoid all of this, i have already learnt a lot of things, I’ve done a lot of mistakes and i look forward to never repeat them.. thanks Hums4r (talk) 05:17, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
No harm done, Hums4r. Wikipedia has a lot of rules... new editors make mistakes, learn from them, and become better. I was exactly the same. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 05:21, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Big student house/sandboxEdit

Soft-blocked for promotional username and promotional userspace draft speedily deleted. Fences&Windows 19:56, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
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.

Version referenced: [16]

User:Big student house exhibits a high degree of WP:COI. Please keep a lookout for WP:NPOV and notable references if the article Big student house is made. The current sandbox draft is written more as an advertisement than an article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SingleEukaryote (talkcontribs)

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.

Chris OyakhilomeEdit

User has essentially only edited this article. They have repeatedly added uncited and/or copyvio content, and removed cited content. They have not responded to copyvio and COI notices on their talkpage, but have emailed me directly (via Wikipedia) with a variety of baseless accusations. Edwardx (talk) 13:49, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

They've had warnings about edit warring and blanking, and haven't yet repeated the edits. I suggest you start a talk page section to discuss the number of Facebook followers and the controversy section and ping them to join the discussion. Also consider if the sources are sufficient and accurately reflected and whether there are others available. If they persist in this behaviour, then a partial block and/or page protection will be necessary. Fences&Windows 02:07, 16 January 2021 (UTC)




User QRep2020 created the article TSLAQ, a Tesla short-selling group, in their first month as editor. TSLAQ is the Tesla ticker symbol + "Q"... the NASDAQ notation for bankruptcy. The name QRep2020 presumably stands for "Q Representative 2020", which implies undisclosed WP:COI. Using the TopEdits tool [17] you can see this user appears to be a WP:SPA that edits primarily in the articles TSLAQ, Elon Musk, and Tesla, Inc., Ken Klippenstein (journalist known for publishing information related to Tesla), and PlainSite (publishes Tesla leaks). There appears to be an overwhelming trove of problematic bias with this user. More disturbingly, and I don't want to out a potential identity, but there is a real-life lawsuit filed against a user QRep2020 has repeatedly edit warred with by a man with interest in all the same articles as QRep2020, and this man would have clear financial COI.

I have not personally been in any edit confrontations with QRep2020, but the user has repeatedly been asked to reveal bias and has not done so. The most recent example being Talk:TSLAQ#This_is_the_most_hilarious_WP:COI_article_I've_read. --Elephanthunter (talk) 18:05, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Pretty much all of QRep2020's advocacy has been for adding information critical of Tesla and removing information critical of TSLAQ, with a specific focus on short-selling. I'll include some specific diffs:
  • TSLAQ - Removing POV template [18]
  • TSLAQ - Removing COI information mentioned in source article (The Funicular Fund is the same group as Cable Car Capitol) [19]
  • Elon Musk - Adding a whole section about how Elon Musk dislikes short-selling [20]
  • Elon Musk - Edit comment "Musk’s lack of respect for the SEC statements updated." [21]
  • Tesla, Inc. - Adding controversies [22] [23]
  • Tesla, Inc. - Adding reference to TSLAQ and adding a lawsuits section [24]
Again, QRep2020 appears to have a financial COI regarding the topic of Tesla and Musk, and an even stronger COI regarding TSLAQ specifically. --Elephanthunter (talk) 18:54, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
I have declared that I have no financial ties to Tesla, short or long. The subject matter I tend to focus on here on Wikipedia is highly contentious, no doubt, but my edits are always in neutral tone and comply with the standards of Wikipedia. As noted, there is a neutrality template on TSLAQ right now that we are resolving on the Talk:TSLAQ. As I have declared elsewhere I am not a member of TSLAQ, and, if it really has to be said, I have done nothing wrong here. Stewarding pages, especially ones that one has created, that are attacked on a regular basis is something that is honored on Wikipedia. Similarly, the quality of my sourcing speaks for itself and I will note that other editors have heavily edited these three pages without being singled out. QRep2020 (talk) 19:29, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Absent evidence that Qrep2020 has a COI this should be closed. Many editors work in areas where they have an interest in the topic. That doesn't mean they have a COI per Wikipedia. Having a narrow interest or a particular personal POV is not a COI (else so many editors in AP2 would have to step down). As for the added content, if consensus on those articles doesn't support the edits in question they should be removed but that is a content question, not a COI question. Tesla/Musk appears to be a sensitive topic to some. I have made very few edits in this area yet I was also questioned about COI. Springee (talk) 19:48, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
    I am specifically focusing on QRep2020 because the username and editing behavior indicates this user is a representative for TSLAQ. It goes far beyond simple interest and into problematic WP:ADVOCACY. --Elephanthunter (talk) 20:05, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
    If you have asked and they have said no that is all we can do absent some hard evidence to the contrary. Repeated accusations of COI absent proper evidence is a personal attack. If the material is otherwise problematic then you can raise the issue at ANI. Springee (talk) 20:41, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
    You are incorrect that a user's refusal to acknowledge COI is the sole basis for COI determination. As stated in the header, COI determination is based on COIN consensus. --Elephanthunter (talk) 21:03, 16 January 2021 (UTC)