Welcome to Conflict of interest Noticeboard (COIN)
Shortcuts WP:COI/N WP:COIN WP:COIBOARD Sections older than 14 days archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. Click here to purge this page (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 requested edits is where COI editors have placed the {{Request edit}} template: Wikipedia requested edits Answered requested edits Declined requested edits Implemented requested edits Misplaced requested edits Partially implemented requested edits Talk:365 Media Group Talk:A. O. Smith Talk:AARP Talk:Aerie Pharmaceuticals Talk:African Lion Safari Talk:Amnon Aharony Talk:Aiglon College Talk:Al Jazeera Media Network Talk:Alfa Laval Talk:Alliant Credit Union Talk:American College of Education Talk:Anomali Talk:Lucius Artorius Castus Talk:Association for Renewable Energy and Clean Technology Talk:Sathya Sai Baba Talk:Stewart W. Bainum Jr. Talk:Richard A. Baker (businessman) Talk:Ella Ballentine Talk:Barrett, The Honors College Talk:James Bevan (diplomat) Talk:Beyond Meat Talk:Björgólfur Thor Björgólfsson Talk:Mark Bradford Talk:Brian Chambers (Curator) Talk:Florian Brody Talk:Walter Bruno Talk:Mark Burnett Talk:Campaign Legal Center Talk:Chainlink (blockchain) Talk:Kang-Yell Choi Talk:Christian Science Reading Room Talk:Colombo City Centre Talk:Conservation and restoration of cultural property Talk:Cracker Barrel Talk:Tom Crosshill Talk:Walter De Brouwer Talk:Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation Talk:Digital agriculture Talk:Joe Dolce Talk:DoorDash Talk:Dover Corporation Talk:Paul W Draper Talk:Duquesne City School District Talk:Dutch Bros. Coffee Talk:Electronic fluency device Talk:Michele Mario Elia Talk:EMV Talk:EOS Group Talk:EPAM Systems Talk:European Space Operations Centre Talk:Evernote Talk:Faculty of 1000 Talk:Jay Faison Talk:Fardad Fateri Talk:Federal University of Minas Gerais Talk:Thomas Fellows (author) Talk:Bruce Flatt Talk:Byington Ford Talk:Fortinet Talk:FreedomWorks Talk:Frontiers Media Talk:Georgia College & State University Talk:Geriatrics Talk:Globcal International Talk:GoodLeap Talk:Jonathan D. Gray Talk:Greenwich Village Society for Historic Preservation Talk:Hearst Media Production Group Talk:Hikvision Talk:Hilbert College Talk:Home-Start Worldwide Talk:Hong Kong Jockey Club Talk:Human Appeal Talk:Icertis Talk:Bob Iger Talk:Interactive Brokers Talk:International Institute for Conservation Talk:Philippe Jabre Talk:Bawa Jain Talk:Michael Kempner Talk:Olaf Koch Talk:Karel Komárek Talk:Konecranes Talk:Kwik Fit Talk:Charles Lane (journalist) Talk:Marc J. Lane Talk:Laureate Education Talk:Leaders for Global Operations Talk:LegalShield Talk:Legatum Institute Talk:Marcus Lemonis Talk:Jim Lobe Talk:LoopUp Talk:Lufthansa Cargo Talk:Luminar Technologies Talk:Pat Lundvall Talk:Lush (company) Talk:Maitreya Talk:Don Martin (journalist) Talk:Kelsey Martin Talk:Lisa Matisoo-Smith Talk:William McCurdy II Talk:Lynn McDonald (psychologist) Talk:Patrick McGuire (solicitor) Talk:Chris Meek Talk:Merit Group Talk:Metro AG Talk:Minimum description length Talk:Mobileye Talk:Mauro Moretti Talk:Marc Morial Talk:Mother Cabrini Health Foundation Talk:Murex (financial software) Talk:MyRepublic Talk:National Medal of Honor Museum Talk:NetDynamics Application Server Talk:Nottawaseppi Huron Band of Potawatomi Talk:Ofer Strichman Talk:OLX Talk:ONEArmenia Talk:Noah Oppenheim Talk:Neri Oxman Talk:Park Lane Stables Teddington Talk:Anthony Pateras Talk:Yana Peel Talk:Petco Talk:Pitney Bowes Talk:John Pizzarelli Talk:The Players' Tribune Talk:Gabe Polsky Talk:Presidential transition of Joe Biden Talk:Pristyn Care Talk:Private sector development Talk:Professional Fighters League Talk:Qnet Talk:Resolute Forest Products Talk:Joyce Rey Talk:RINA (company) Talk:Rockefeller University Talk:Robert Rubin Talk:Ruder Finn Talk:Austin Russell (entrepreneur) Talk:William Russell (Lord Mayor) Talk:Johnathon Schaech Talk:Sequoia Capital Talk:Ruchir Sharma Talk:Terje G. Simonsen Talk:Singapore Institute of Management Talk:Abdulah Skaka Talk:Carol Smallwood Talk:Soil Association Talk:SoldierStrong Talk:The Raw Story Talk:The Real News Network Talk:TikTok Talk:Top Glove Talk:Verizon (mobile network) Talk:Verizon Communications Talk:Vivo (technology company) Talk:Wise Music Group

Jackson T. Williams[edit]

• Draft:Jackson T. Williams (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 2022 Vermont gubernatorial election (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• RxmenHabibi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Their edits to the listed articles may not seem like a conflict of interest, they seem to have only added a candidate here. However, they have also spammed endorsements of the supposed candidate into various other election articles, which honestly makes it frustrating to clean up. —twotwofourtysix^{(My talk page and contributions)} 09:26, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

This feels more like vandalism than COI. An 8th grader? --SVTCobra 15:43, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

I wanted to AGF only because their edits until the 24th had been constructive. —twotwofourtysix^{(My talk page and contributions)} 23:31, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Until this, I suppose. --SVTCobra 13:04, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Sanjib Baruah[edit]

• Draft:Sanjib Baruah (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Arunudoy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Onel5969 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Draft:Pallab Bhattacharyya (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (Added 01:26, 29 January 2022 (UTC))

Apparent impasse with NPP Onel5969 declaring "Sorry, there are clear indications you have either a WP:UPE or WP:COI conflict" after Arunudoy has made strenuous denials at Special:Diff/1068029946 and in the (second) "Sanjib Baruah moved draftspace" section on their talk page. I will comment in my view at a scan the subject of the article "Sanjib Baruah" is possibly borderline notable and it is possible an AfD test might go either way; what I do notice is Arunudoy has perhaps not unreasonably shown interest in the Assam state of India (pop. 31m) in his previous contributions/XfDs and has highlighted a connection in the Baruah article. (I do notice a previous incarnation of the article was moved to draftspace but then CFORK re-created by Arunudoy in mainspace by Arunudoy per Special:Diff/1053977288 ). Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 11:30, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

• I removed apparent WP:OR/WP:SYNTH from the Sanjib Baruah draft [1] that from my view also raises a WP:BLPSTYLE concern due to the label that had been applied. Other Assam-related edits by Arunudoy include the Sarmistha Pritam AfD (full name Sarmistha Pritam Baruah, although no apparent relation to Sanjib Baruah), a BLPPROD on the Siddhartha Sarma article when multiple independent and reliable sources in the article supported multiple claims [2], and edits noted in the pending discussion at the BLP noticeboard about the Uddhab Bharali article. It also appears there may be a sense of WP:OWN expressed on their userpage since its creation in 2014, i.e. "Please contact me before you remove/alter any content created by me." There is also this recent edit on the Riniki Bhuyan Sarma article (also nominated for AfD by Arunudoy), removing the category Indian Hindus with the edit summary "Wikipedia is not about religion". Per the How to handle conflicts of interest section of the COI guideline, perhaps we should consider whether there is some advocacy happening and whether further discussion about the neutral point of view policy would be beneficial. Beccaynr (talk) 16:32, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

• With a straight denial to WP:UPE or WP:COI conflict, I should mention that I have spent my student life in Assam, though I am a resident of Meghalaya. I have made my edits whichever are under my little or more knowledge. For example, I do not know much about Sri Lankan people, how could I write an article about a Sri Lankan? Basic is that one must have to know/hear about someone to create/edit a Wiki page about him or her. Isn't that enough? For knowledge of all, Sanjib Baruah doesn't live in Assam, he lives in the United State. I am not a high-profile person to have any contact with him. There are lots of Wikipedians from Assam, and they mostly create articles about subjects from Assam. Hence I created. But I have also made many edits about non-Assam subjects. Why no mention of those? I am denying all allegations of WP:UPE or WP:COI conflict, again, and I declare that I have no direct or indirect connection with any subject I have made edits. It is a straight misunderstanding among the Admins, nothing beyond at all. Arunudoy ^(talk) 20:36, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

• Comment: Following extensive work by myself and Beccaynr we hopefully have cleared or mostly cleared BLP issues and made it clear NAUTHOR is passed and I have therefore BOLDly moved the draft to mainspace at Sanjib Baruah. I have strongly suggested Arunudoy not to edit the article due to problems with previous contributions outside the COI/UPE matter here. The move was made simply because I confidently feel the subject is sufficiently notable for an article and the current revision is subtantially clear of BLP problems. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 19:30, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

• Comment - I'm sure there'll be the same argument about Draft:Pallab Bhattacharyya, which I've also sent to draft to segregate the UPE/COI. At this point, not sure which it is, as there is clearly the same markers of COI editing in this draft as the other. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:02, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

• Comment Seems Onel5969 will see UPE/COI on everything I made an edit. This is strictly harassment by Onel5969. Again, I needed to say that a Director General level Police officer and citations with mostly Government sources are not enough?? - Arunudoy ^(talk) 16:29, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

• Comment Yes, when investigating possible cases of conflict of interest editing, editors must be careful not to out other editors and there should not be personal attacks. But, I could not resist myself to say that this user Arunudoy is a single purpose account. His name is [redacted]. He frequently criticises the BJP and its members, and he is now utilising Wikipedia to propose each BJP member's entry on Wikipedia for deletion (just check out his activities) e.g. AfD. He is also hunting other Assamese journalists on Wikipedia. Just check out his all activities on Wikipedia. This person should be blocked from editing on Wikipedia. Scobserv (talk) 17:44, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

• Comment Dear Scobserv, whoever I am, Wikipedia policy says that you can not reveal my legal identity. You are breaking rules with personal attacks, and harassment. Please refrain from such act. -Arunudoy ^(talk) 18:04, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

• Comment: The move of Sanjib Baruah to mainspace should not be taken as any influence on the matter of whether or not there was COI/UPE; my decision to improve that towards mainspace suitablilty of that article as that the author seemed significant. If people wish to make allegations of bad faith against others then here is not the place to do it, WP:ANI is, where everyone's contributions will be scrutinized. I'd suggest there will be one likely result out of that board, and people should be aware of WP:BOOMERANGs there. Thankyou. 01:26, 29 January 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djm-leighpark (talk • contribs) 01:26, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

@Djm-leighpark: Are there genuine COI concerns or is this more of a POV dispute? (And please, don't anybody post WP:OUTING material again!) If it is a dispute about content, bias or POV; it's really not for this board. If there's on-wiki evidence of COI please share it. If it is off-wiki, please follow the instructions at the top of this page and send it to functionaries. Cheers, --SVTCobra 01:38, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

@SVTCobra: I am minded Onel5969 likely has UPE/COI concerns and there may be possible indicators I'm not bringing forward here. Note possible. Possibly better for Onel5969 to email the WP:FUNKies. I might give a quick email outlying my position but I'm on a time crunch at the moment.Djm-leighpark (talk) 01:53, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

• Comment: Again, about the Draft:Pallab Bhattacharyya, the subject person was a Head of the State police's Intelligence department. As we know, they are bound to protocols, they stay untouchable with civilians. I have created and edited dead Militant/Insurgent pages too. I have made edits beyond my living area. Whatever subject I just noticed eligible for Wiki, I did or tried. If anyone noticed, I am not so expert in English writing, why would someone contact me for Wiki creation where my English writing is not up to global standard? Again I declare that I am not affiliated with any of the subjects I made edits or page create. Repeated allegations of COI & UPE against me is really compelled me to suffer too much stress. In real life, I have always stood against bribery, hence why I would use Wikipedia to earn anything? Personally, I do not believe that Wikipedia can even be a source of money. I am really stressed. I should take a rest for some days (probably months) and refrain from any further editing as of now. I wish you the good of all here. But please do not blame me for any COI or UPE for God's sake. Thanking you all --Arunudoy ^(talk) 08:26, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

• Comment: User:Scobserv (critical comment, above), has been indefinitely blocked for harrassing Arunudoy. David notMD (talk) 13:46, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
• Comment: @SVTCobra: Per your suggestion I contacted one (highly) respected functionary yesterday and I claim they responded as follows: "I consulted on some oversighting of that discussion yesterday but I don't see anything from Onel that might need oversighting." One has to be very careful with what on takes from a private email, but if I tried to paraphrase that I could change a very precise meaning, which I take as effectively a cautious note saying nothing Onel has said needs to be oversighted (e.g. redacted). I am not disclosing what I wrote to elicit that response, which was somewhat rushed. I will also note that earlier todays I nominated a small number of images of Arunudoy's for deletion on a basis of probably incorrect licensing/copyright infringement: these matters seem to have caused them to lash out attacks and for example not to work out diligently how to defend image deletion nominations in the correct place with prescriptive defences. I would summarise by saying that while I see a number of flags that I could see as possible indicators of COI/UPE by Arunudoy I am also very minded there are quite plausible and maybe probable non-COI/UPE scenarios that explain them. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 01:32, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

• Comment this Draft history is enough to prove that @Onel5969: made a baseless allegation against me. I appeal to Wikipedia:Administrators to come up with a fair investigation and inquire about @Onel5969:'s allegation as per Wiki policy WP:ANI. --NeverTry4Me - TT Page 08:59, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Corey Paris[edit]

• Corey Paris (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• DamaniRD (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• CDems179 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I created this page on May 7, 2021, along with many other pages for members of the Connecticut Legislature, and it has attracted a lot of edits that seem to be in violation of WP:NPOV, WP:COI, and WP:PROMO. Now, with one WP:SPA repeatedly inserting unsourced promotional material into the page and moving it (in violation of WP:COMMONNAME), I have decided to bring this to the attention of others. The page was protected on May 9, 2021, and I am requesting that the page be given some form of protection again to prevent these changes. KidAd • SPEAK 00:18, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

@KidAd:, I suspect it is more of a political affinity rather than an actual direct COI, but we will have to see how it plays out. As for the inactive editor, I immediately felt WP:ISU might apply, but it might be overreaching. Cheers, --SVTCobra 01:45, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Unsurprisingly I disagree with your characterizations of my contributions. I will concede that the page move may not have been within the spirit of Wikipedia:COMMONNAME. Other contributions however included citations and should have remained on the page. Further I have no conlict of Interest that would disqualify me from participation in developing this page. DamaniRD (talk) 15:01, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Nate Ruegger[edit]

Editor editing his own article[edit]

• Grant Kereama (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• KereGrant (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Adding unsourced material as well. There are only two sources to the article although I believe the subject is notable. Doug Weller talk 08:46, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, passes notability with flying colors, imho. Page needs serious cleanup. I did some of the basics. --SVTCobra 12:59, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: Don't forget to notify users when starting a discussion. I have done so this time. Cheers, --SVTCobra 13:28, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

@SVTCobra: sorry. I keep forgetting ping notifications aren’t considered sufficient. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 13:32, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Blocked for WP:REALNAME until we get proof of identity. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 16:16, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

ForTheScience[edit]

ForTheScience (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user has only made around 20 edits since they began editing two years ago. All of these edits have been to add research papers that are authored by Dogancan Uzun, Savas Sezen, Refik Ozyurt, Mehmet Atlar and Osman Turan, who are all based at Naval Architecture, Ocean And Marine Engineering at the University of Strathclyde. They have been continually edit warring to add reference to their work in the second sentence of the Barnacle article in a prominence that I would consider inappropriate. Since I warned them about COI, they gave a very dismissive response on my talkpage diff and promptly added the reference back to the lead of the Barnacle article again, proclaiming themselves as an "expert in the field" diff. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:59, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

he or she did thank me for asking him or her to read the Wikipedia:Expert editors page, so there's hope they will get the message. rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 23:29, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't see how a users who dismisses other editors that they deem "non-expert" can ever collaboratively work on the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:35, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

I recently chanced upon the essay Wikipedia:Relationships with academic editors - it gives a good insight into the minds of academic editors and their difficulty adapting to the collaborative environment of Wikipedia. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 14:40, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Geoff Wilson (Australian explorer)[edit]

• Geoff Wilson (Australian explorer) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Ensam65 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Ensam65 initially created Draft:Geoff Wilson (Australian explorer), which I moved to draftspace upon review. They stated on their talk page that publishing the article was their only option, apparently implying a deadline. I ask if they are being paid to write the article and they did not respond. They've now republished the article in mainspace. ––FormalDude talk 11:41, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

• No comment, except to note that I have moved it to Geoff Wilson (veterinarian), as "explorer" seems promotional and unsupported by sources. I will also note that I question whether the article meets WP:GNG. BilledMammal (talk) 11:46, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

@BilledMammal:, this comment also doesn't have a bearing on the potential COI either, but veterinarian is clearly not what the potential notability is based upon, perhaps adventurer would have been better. I do agree explorer was a poor choice. --SVTCobra 02:29, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

I considered adventurer, but there doesn't seem to be any significant coverage using that term either. BilledMammal (talk) 10:38, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

I note, the original draft and the live article have become forked in the process. --SVTCobra 15:00, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

EFdnV, EFjacob[edit]

• Eclipse Foundation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• EFdnV (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• EFjacob (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Apologies in advance for any faux pas, new to editing.

While editing the page for Eclipse Foundation, I found several edits that seem to have been made by members of the Foundation, which seems to me like a COI. They have EF at the start of their names (which very well could stand for Eclipse Foundation). These users are EFdnV and EFjacob. In past, the user C.smith eclipefoundation has made contributions to the Foundation's page; this might be a pattern. Both have only contributed to the page for the Foundation. Their contributions are here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/EFdnV

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/EFjacob

Lkb335 (talk) 20:30, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Indeed as both accounts use "EF" in the username and they are SPAs for Eclipse Foundation it is highly suggestive of COI. I have no idea if Eclipse Foundation meets WP:NORG but all 23 of the references are from Eclipse itself. 320 members could be a club or a serious organization. --SVTCobra 21:18, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

It doesn't look like it meets WP:NCORP to me either (google string: Eclipse Foundation -microsoft.com -eclipse.org; this cuts out basically everything substantive, though I haven't dug past that). Since it's also a pretty likely COI, I was just about to write a note on the talk page asking @Lkb335 if they wanted to try Newbie's First WP:AFD Nomination. -- asilvering (talk) 03:05, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Sure! I can try my hand at that. I will say that I personally do think it qualifies as WP:NCORP, given the ubiquity of its IDE in Java development; its support from major organizations like Microsoft, Oracle, and Red Hat; and its general role in creating widely-used open source software. Lkb335 (talk) 04:31, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

@Lkb335: I started a note on the talk page for the Foundation so this doesn't get too off-topic. -- asilvering (talk) 04:39, 30 Jan(UTC)

Vdressle[edit]

• Adena, Ohio (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (this is one of many pages as there are too many to list --SVTCobra 22:43, 31 January 2022 (UTC))
• Vdressle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This is a single-purpose editor whose only edits have been to add Sanborn Fire Insurance maps to articles.

I asked the editor why they were adding all these maps to articles, and they replied that "We digitized these at my job last year and we think people might find these easier on a Wikipedia page and have interest in using the digital scans for research".

I asked if this was part of their job, and they replied "Yep! We were inspired by a project at Toledo public library doing something similar and thought we'd try it out too :)"

After I tagged their page with a COI notice, they insisted there was no COI, saying "I am not receiving compensation for these posts. I am a digital librarian doing these edits on my own time using freely available images (which have undergone copyright review)".

After a few days break, this editor is making their case for permission to continue COI editing at the talk page of an article where one of the maps was deleted.

While these photos are a great benefit to the Commons, they have been dumped alphabetically into Wikipedia articles with little concern about their appropriateness (and most are not appropriate).

Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:25, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

After looking around a little bit this seems like a nuanced type of COI. Vdressle has disclosed a role as part of Kent State University through which a role implied at a much larger Digital Public Library of America project on DPLA on Commons. Further, it should be noted that Sanborn maps are historic and an invaluable asset to Commons. The scans provided by Kent State University are of particularly high quality and I can't blame Vdressle if they are proud of having been part of the project. I think we should end any accusations of paid editing, even if Vdressle is a paid digital librarian. Neither Vdressle nor their employer stands to benefit financially in any way.
Those things said, it seems clear to me, Vdressle needs to be more discerning in how, if and when they add these maps to localities (in Ohio as it seems). I cannot be sure of their motivation, but it feels a little bit like vanity. They want other people to see their work. But in Adena, Ohio which was the cited example, the map was clearly inappropriate. It was a map of 3 different cities/towns. Overall, it is quite a bit different than WP:CITESPAM (which is a form of COI) but I agree with Magnolia677 that adding a Sanborn map to every locality in Ohio alphabetically is inappropriate. --SVTCobra 23:27, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Could someone please advise on how I could incorporate these images into entries? If there is an example or guidance, I would be most appreciative (could this be a section or subsection on a page? I really would love advice).

I made a post on the Adena page after asking for help under my user page- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Vdressle#Help_me! , who said "This sounds like a content dispute (based on the edit summary), so you should discuss the matter further at Talk:Adena, Ohio. If you want more help, change the (help me-helped) back into a (help me), stop by the Teahouse, or Wikipedia's live help channel, or the help desk to ask someone for assistance. Primefac (talk) 14:10, 31 January 2022 (UTC)".

My intent is not to spam, but my hope is to share these images in different ways hopefully with the communities that are reflected in these maps. Vdressle (talk) 23:49, 31 January 2022 (UTC)Vdressle

@Vdressle:, I feel like I understand your motivation, you just didn't quite go about it in the right way. Nevertheless, I did spot one way you can contribute to the overall mission of Wikimedia. The scanned maps you were adding to Wikipedia articles are not categorized on Commons. (Look at the bottom of c:File:Adena, Jefferson and Harrison County, Ohio, 1924 - DPLA - 0984f1f54d84f68c1095742ffab7d9e6 (page 1).jpeg and c:File:Buckeye Lake Park, Fairfield, Licking and Perry counties, Ohio, 1929 - DPLA - 4a0b0eb8952988b1db40366c0ddd360c (page 1).jpeg for examples.) Without categories it is going to be hard for anyone to find them. Here c:File:Sanborn Fire Insurance Map from Kittanning, Armstrong County, Pennsylvania. LOC sanborn07747 001-1.jpg is a map with categories. Now, it will take you a little time to learn the "category trees" of Commons, but we should not discuss that here. They will eventually be one click away from the Wikipedia articles. Cheers, --SVTCobra 00:14, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

• I've noticed a lot of old fire insurance maps while doing research to get some of my geostubs into better shape for GA or FA nominations -- they seem to be very high-quality resources (high-resolution, detailed maps in the public domain). I'm not sure that it's ipso facto disruption for someone to be adding a bunch of them to articles where they're relevant. While it's possible that they were adding them in a half-assed manner, this largely doesn't seem to have been the case. @Magnolia677: Is there a reason you blanket-reverted all of their edits? jp×g 07:14, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

  In this diff, it doesn't even look like they added the image (which was put there several days earlier by another editor), they just added a caption. On Blanchester, Ohio, their edit added an 1892 map that seems to be right in the middle of the city (at 39.292304, -83.98755), which provides some obvious historical context, and adds to a history section which is otherwise woefully incomplete -- the entire section currently consists of Blanchester was laid out in 1832 by Joseph and John Blancett, and named for them.[6] In March of 2020, the Benley Building burnt down just before the schools shut down for the rest of the year. jp×g 07:22, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Mass additions to hundreds of articles are disruptive and should proceed by consensus. At Beloit, Ohio, this map was added to a three-sentence long history section that made no mention of the platting or street layout of the settlement. The addition was clearly decorative, per MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE, and the map looks like a blueprint, with tiny text. These are valuable maps and a wonderful asset on the Commons, but their alphabetic addition to hundreds of articles--with little consideration to their relevance or disruption to layout--was not an improvement. Magnolia677 (talk) 09:20, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Goodness me! These are exactly the kind of edits we want archivists and librarians to make. See WP:CURATOR. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:09, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing: Did you even read WP:CURATOR? The section is three sentences long, and one of those three sentences specifically says that Wikipedia is not a repository of images. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:00, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes I did. Did you read the section to which that text links, WP:REPOSITORY, which is about a situation that has nothing whatsoever to do with the case at hand? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:06, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

This whole issue feels like a prime example of biting the newbies to me. Not only are these high quality images being added to the relevant pages, the new user, who is clearly acting in good faith, is now being made to feel like they have done something wrong. By any non-Wiki standard, they have not - they are in fact taking time out of their way to be helpful and share something interesting. These are not maps actually being produced for this person's work, or that are promotional for the editor's employer. They are historical. The case that the addition of these maps is actually worsening the articles is very thin. A mountain out of a molehill. Ganesha811 (talk) 16:00, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

User:Barbara Rutto[edit]

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

Newly created user who has made 91 edits in the past day, almost completely focused on articles related to companies and organizations. Shows editing behavior that seems to indicate previous editing experience- I suspect that there's some paid editing going on here. User has not responded to a previous COI warning on their talkpage. Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 10:36, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Note that they has written Write, translate and edit articles about business, companies and startups. on their user page, suggesting that that is the only purpose of this account. Miracusaurs (talk) 13:04, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Editing in a singular, albeit wide, topic area is not what WP:SPA is about. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:11, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

While true, I find the likelihood of there being some undisclosed editing relatively high based on their behavior. Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 10:58, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

They're continuing to edit without even acknowledging this thread. Miracusaurs (talk) 15:30, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Adoptium[edit]

• Adoptium (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Gdams1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User Gdams1 is, according to their user page, a contributor to AdoptOpenJDK, the project that became Eclipse Adoptium. They have edited the Adoptium article and that of the Eclipse Foundation (an article with at least 7 other COI editors). Lkb335 (talk) 19:38, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Relevant editor has been appropriately notified. The relationship between AdoptOpenJDK and Adoptium is documented. Gdams1 please read WP:COIDISCLOSE for guidance in properly disclosing your conflict of interest in the Adoptium article talk page. A COI is not a bad thing necessarily, just changes a bit how the community expects you to edit. If you need any assistance in figuring how to abide by the COI guidelines feel free to ask here. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 19:46, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

COI - DTAS[edit]

• Development Trusts Association Scotland (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• SheilaDTAS (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I work for DTAS and discovered we are on wikipedia and updated the key people section. However, i got a message saying their could be a conflict of interest. My colleagues also wanted to expand the section for our COSS team, for example, and wondered if/how we are able to do this? I'd be grateful if you could advise. PS: We have no idea who or how the DTAS wiki page was created....thanks for your help.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SheilaDTAS (talk • contribs) 08:18, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

@SheilaDTAS: The article was created by a user called Chanstarnov back in 2011. You can see all edits in the page history. Per our Terms of Service, your first step should be to declare your connection to your employer on your user page (see WP:PAID for more details). You can do so by editing your userpage and adding the following code: {{paid|employer=Developments Trusts Association Scotland}}. The same applies to all your colleagues who might want to make such edits on behalf of your employer.

You can learn more about editing with a conflict of interest at our guide at Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide. Generally, it is advised to not edit the article directly but instead place the {{edit request}} template on the talk page of the article with a list of changes you would like to be made. An experienced editor will then answer the request and make the edits if they think them useful. Regards SoWhy 10:10, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) SheilaDTAS, thanks so much for coming to this noticeboard and contributing to Wikipedia, we're glad to help you understand our COI guidelines. The page Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide is a good introduction to the expectations and procedures we have in place for editors such as yourself or your colleagues. WP:DISCLOSE is a link to the section of our COI guideline you might find most useful, i.e. how to properly communicate with other editors that you have a COI, while Wikipedia:Edit requests is an information page on the procedure you're expected to follow when there is information you want to add, change, or remove from the DTAS article. I understand that getting acquainted with all the different rules and expectations of Wikipedia can be a challenge at first, so if there is any issue or question you want help with please don't hesitate to respond in this thread or {{ping}} me and I'll be glad to help :) A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 10:17, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

That "plain and simple" guide has over 5,300 words. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:43, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Pigsonthewing I think it might be the many, many examples and pieces of advice given. Perhaps there's a need for a Wikipedia:Even more plain and simple conflict on interest guide? A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 02:21, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Here's one from the very top of WP:COI: Do not edit Wikipedia in your own interests, nor in the interests of your external relationships. – Joe (talk) 20:08, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Rhodes Piano[edit]

• Rhodes piano (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Christian.Dumouchel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I improved this article to good article status some time back, and have maintained it since, adding new and better sources as I can find them. However, I can't let an edit like this, which is unsourced and reads like a press release from someone with a self-declared conflict of interest, to stand. So my question is, what should we do? I'd quite like to start a dialogue, in particular if there is stuff that is in reliable sources that we might have a reasonable assumption of being factually incorrect or questionable. But given the edits so far, I'm not sure I'd be successful. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:13, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

First, removing the edit was necessary as it appears to contain flagrant WP:COPYRIGHT violations as entire paragraphs have been copy-pasted from here, here (the latter is the company's own site), and possibly elsewhere. Second, the edit is obviously incredibly promotional with testimonials from customers, etc. Third, Christian.Dumouchel has admitted a conflict of interest in this edit where they state: I was tasked by our CEO to edit the Wiki page as there were a few inaccuracies and a lot of missing information about the companies new history. which means we are talking about paid editing. --SVTCobra 14:16, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

hello,

Yes, 100%. This has got slightly ahead of me. I really wasn't at all aware of any of this. I am thankful it has been deleted as I didn't fully realise how many guidelines I was breaking. This definitely isn't a task, I personally, should see through. I am very much underqualified and underskilled in this area to complete this task successfully.

I think this should be left for now and maybe await someone, such as yourself, to form this article to a correct standard.

Apologies again for all this. I will refrain from making any edits on this page.

Regards, Christian — Preceding unsigned comment added by Christian.Dumouchel (talk • contribs) 14:29, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

SVTCobra While everything you say is correct, there are a couple of significant differences between this and stereotypical paid advocacy. Firstly, the edits were on an unquestionably notable topic which has been independently improved to GA anyway. Secondly, the underlying the substance of the edits is, at least in part, backed up in multiple, independent, reliable sources like MusicRadar and Sound on Sound. Thirdly, not understanding how to write neutral prose without close paraphrasing is a mistake new editors make all the time, but it's only a problem if they repeatedly do it, which I don't think is the case here, because .... Fourthly, Christian has apologised for not understanding Wikipedia policy on their first few edits - and who can honestly blame him? I've had a chat and I think an understanding has been achieved, so at this point I'm going to recommend no further action. Or, to put it another way, I will be profoundly unimpressed if I find Christian is blocked by any administrator in the next 48 hours. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:37, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

@Ritchie333:. Just to be clear, I did not recommend a block for Christian. I was primarily affirming, you were right to revert the entire edit as you said ought not be left to stand. People familiar with me on this board know, I am the last person to recommend blocks for COI or even paid editors unless, of course, they refuse to admit what they are doing. This is obviously not the case here. Now that Christian has responded and acknowledged their edit ran afoul of some policies, we can turn to recommended best practices for them. I see Andy has already begun that process below. Cheers, --SVTCobra 20:00, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

@Christian.Dumouchel: We do want you - and companies like yours - to contribute. Firstly you can suggest changes, such as those you made, on the talk page of the article. You know best when things fall out of date, after all. But equally importantly, your company can share images of your products, and your key people, and your buildings, under an open licence (and you'd need to first understand what that means), on our companion project Wikimedia Commons. We can then select which to use in the article and add a link to the Commons category page, where they can all be viewed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:35, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

@Christian.Dumouche and Pigsonthewing:. I would like to augment Andy's comment above. It looks like Andy overlooked that the article in question is about a piano and not the company which produces the piano. So, photographs of employees, buildings and other products will most likely not be appropriate. Photos of the piano are always welcome on Commons, but it looking at c:Category:Rhodes pianos there are currently enough to illustrate the Rhodes piano. Should an article about the company come into being, Andy's comment applies. --SVTCobra 21:30, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

I overlooked no such thing. An image of the designer of the piano, or the workshop in which it is made, for example, could both be appropriate for the article in question. Absent an article on a company (or in some cases an inventor), it's also usual to include a basic outline in the article on their product, at is done in this case. Note that I concluded "We can then select which to use in the article..." Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:12, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing:, No? Well, I think you overlooked quite a few things. There's already an article about the inventor Harold Rhodes who died more than two decades ago and the piano was invented in the 40s or 50s with the first commercial venture in 1959. Since then the Rhodes name has been passed around mostly like an IP. Why would you think an employee of the company which acquired the rights for the Rhodes piano in 2021 would own copyrights for images of Harold Rhodes? Why would you think images of the employees and buildings of of a company formed in 2021 would serve well in an article about a historic piano? I already said, they would be good for an article about the company which I understand to be called Rhodes Music Group Ltd. I think you were instilling unreasonable expectations for Christian. Cheers, --SVTCobra 23:58, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

I did not overlook that an article about Harold Rhodes exists. I did not say, nor think, that "an employee of the company which acquired the rights for the Rhodes piano in 2021 would own copyrights for images of Harold Rhodes", though precedent shows that the company may well do so. I did not say, nor think, that "images of the employees and buildings of of a company formed in 2021 would serve well in an article about a historic piano" (perhaps you missed that this article is in part about "a new model, the MK8... with 500 units planned for production in 2022"). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:39, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

@Christian.Dumouche:. I would recommend you disclose your connection on your user page with this handy template: {{paid}}. For more information, read Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure. While you are not disallowed from editing the article directly, it is best practice if you use {{request edit}} on the talk page of the article to notify other Wikipedia articles [editors] that a correction or an update is needed. I see Ritchie333 has made a number of edits adding information after the initial revert of your edit, so I have hopes the article is current in a satisfactory state. Cheers, --SVTCobra 21:30, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello all,

I don't believe I should make any further edits, personally. There are a lot of guidelines and a certain way of writing which I think is way beyond me. The section that Richie333 added is perfect. I believe the Rhodes Piano site is highlighting the original pianos and not the companies that make the pianos - as SVTCobra so rightly put it. You really won't see me making any more edits on this page in the future. However, if I do, I will make sure to {{request edit}} as SVTCobra mentioned.

I do just want to make a point that this has truly been a great learning experience for me, I have the utmost respect for the hard work and attention to detail that goes into creating these sites. You have provided me with some sound sources to familiarise myself with the rules and guidelines, so if I do decide to make a {{request edit}} I hope it will be up to your excellent standard.

Thank you all, Christian — Preceding unsigned comment added by Christian.Dumouchel (talk • contribs) 09:22, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Dale A. Martin[edit]

• Dale A. Martin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• László Károlyi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) added by SVTCobra 21:39, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
• Pelicanegg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User:Pelicanegg declared an interest on Draft:Dale A. Martin but moved it to main space rather than submiting for review, I have trimmed the CV like contentand re-written in prose instead of list format, they are now edit warring to get their preferred version rather than requesting edits on the talk page. Theroadislong (talk) 20:37, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Theroadislong, thank you for your intention to help, as I am new to editing on wikipedia. However, removing well referenced pieces of text as well as whole sections is counterproductive. Please go after the references/citations if you have a problem with the text. Formatting should be the least of one's worries on wikipedia... Thank you for your understandingPelicanegg (talk) 20:43, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Dear User:Pigsonthewing, thank you for reviewing my other articles/edits! Would you be so kind as to mediate this confilct, please? I feel as though a lot of the work which was clearly referenced was unjustly removed due to opinions on formatting... Thank you in advance! :) Pelicanegg (talk) 21:25, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

The content was removed because it was not notable and was not independently sourced. Theroadislong (talk) 21:29, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Theroadislong, even the information from the Hungarian National gazette (Magyar közlöny)? Pelicanegg (talk) 22:07, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

That content is still in the article with that source. Theroadislong (talk) 22:14, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

I dare suggest László Károlyi also doesn't look notable and the sources don't look reliable. --SVTCobra 21:39, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

All that remains is 2 self sources, a link to what I assume is a book he wrote, and the award lists. No secondary sources. No indication of notability.Slywriter (talk) 21:49, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Pelicanegg, Please review WP:COI and make the necessary declarations for any articles you have edited. Wikipedia doesn't care that you have a conflict of interest, but the community does care when you publish poorly sourced articles into main space or try and hide the conflict while editing against community consensus. You should also read guide to first article as publishing an article is one of the most difficult tasks on wikipedia and editors are encouraged to do smaller tasks or complete the wikipedia adventure so they get a better understanding of wikipedia's policies.Slywriter (talk) 22:06, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Dear Slywriter When have I 'publish poorly sourced articles into main space or try and hide the conflict'? Please show us the poorly sourced articles. Thank you in advance! Pelicanegg (talk) 22:18, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Pelicanegg, seriously?, see above for at least 2 examples, one of which is almost certainly headed to AfDSlywriter (talk) 22:21, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Slywriter, my article on Dale A. Martin was gutted. Please look at the state in which it was in before Theroadislong deleted whole sections. Thank you in advance! Pelicanegg (talk) 22:25, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Pelicanegg, yes it was poorly sourced hence the gutting. As I also have reduced László Károlyi and what remains does not show WP:NOTABILITY.Slywriter (talk) 22:49, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Elevations RTC[edit]

• Elevations RTC (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• HiRachel420 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sometime last year, after seeing an off-wiki discussion about Wikipedia's coverage of the "troubled teen" industry, I decided to try and clean up some of these articles, many of which were subject to POV pushing by both apparent proponents and detractors of these facilities. On the whole it has actually gone better that I would've expected, but this one is currently the subject of edit warring by parties who are not using the talk page but have been sniping at one another on user talk pages. There are also older edits in the article's history that still seem a bit problematic. I feel like more eyes from experienced Wikipedians might help curb some of this and bring the article into line with WP:NPOV. Beeblebrox (talk) 13:45, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

You are not giving us anything to work with. I'll put {{userlinks}} and {{pagelinks}} above for you to fill in order to make it easier. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SVTCobra (talk • contribs)

The article in question is linked in the section header, I would think a quick glance at the history would make it clear what's the problem is. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:26, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

(talk) keeps adding irrelevant information to the Elevations RTC page and it looks like they have a conflict of interest, being someone closely connected to the place. What they are writing is incoherent and has nothing to do with Elevations RTC. The information looks like it is somewhat connected to Paris Hilton so I suggested that the editor perhaps put the information on a different page where it might be more relevant. The entries that HiRachel420 is putting again make no sense and many are not sourced. The sources they do have mention nothing about Elevations RTC.Farr4h2004 (talk) 00:13, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Farr4h2004Given your 1st edit is an interesting revert edit summary and the page has been your sole focus thus far, just curious if you have a conflict of your own to reveal?Slywriter (talk) 00:38, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Slywriter No, I had edited before but from my IP address so I made a username finally. Farr4h2004 (talk) 02:04, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

RixZZFeller (WikiProfessionals Inc.)[edit]

National Processing LLC[edit]

• National Association of Emergency Medical Technicians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• National Processing LLC (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Here's what they said when warned about their user name and COI:

As soon as this page is autoconfirmed, it will be a high-level overview of National Processing LLC, much in the way of any other business listed on Wikipedia. Please let me know if you need anything else!

Skyerise (talk) 17:58, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

At any rate, it's a blatant UPOL violation, so I've sent it to UAA. Giraffer ^{(talk·contribs)} 18:40, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Username was changed to SteveHall226. This looks like a clear case of undisclosed paid editing, and I have warned them about it. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 14:59, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Cristiano Ronaldo 2016 UEFA Super Cup & 2008 community shield[edit]

Requesting An Indef Block Per clearly WP:NOTHERE[edit]

Scot Kerns[edit]

Regarding the page:

• Scot Kerns (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

These editors appear to me to be SPAs or IPs (which all geolocate to the subject's town) performing CoI edits:

• Kernsds (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Messor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 161.7.39.7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 174.45.39.183 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 69.161.46.63 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2600:6c67:5c7f:f0ca:d22:3497:2e9d:c862 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2600:6c67:5c7f:f0ca:35ab:79c6:c760:d138 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2600:6c67:5c7f:f0ca:3579:bbf9:4a6a:53ee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2600:6c67:5c7f:f0ca:896d:1bd9:ef8b:7fc1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2600:6c67:5c7f:f0ca:fda8:4d59:ebc2:fac1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2600:6c67:5c7f:f0ca:39dd:f2ce:7ea8:a3d8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2600:6c67:5c7f:f0ca:f9d6:6281:26ce:d5e1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2600:100e:b1dd:54e4:a48e:2c38:5e73:75e2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2600:6c67:5c7f:f0ca:11db:9821:941f:fb55 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2600:6c67:5c7f:f0ca:4cf4:847d:c6d1:6090 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The article itself was largely self-sourced puffery. I've trimmed it down a bit, but the subject appears to be continuing to edit his own article, using a variety of IPs and accounts.

• The IP range User:2600:100E:B100:0:0:0:0:0/40 has been blocked from more than a dozen articles between September 2020 and the present, for a history of disruptive editing.
• 161.7.39.7 was also blocked from editing List of the youngest state legislators in the United States with unsourced information about Kerns' predecessor in office by Benicio2020 on 24 January 2021.
• Kernsds was warned about CoI editing by Indyguy on 2 February 2022, and again by me on 4 February 2022.

BurritoTunnelMaintenance (talk) 10:45, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Kernsds matches Scot Kerns' last name and initials, so WP:REALNAME probably applies. --SVTCobra 23:30, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

• Lauriehensley (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) appears to be a new sockpuppet, after Kerns' main account, Kernsds, was blocked. @Deepfriedokra:? MCEricBlair (talk) 08:53, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

  It is worth noting this username matches the name of Scot Kern's mother, yet sought to remove that information from the article. --SVTCobra 23:44, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Cambridge Precision Ltd[edit]

• Cambridge Precision Ltd (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Simply Business (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Hugotopping (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User:Hugotopping has created Cambridge Precision Ltd, which reads very promotionally – they had received a COI warning for a previous article, Simply Business, and they got another one for Cambridge Precision in May (the article ended up being moved to a draft at that time, and they moved it back to mainspace on Feb. 1). I suspect they have a UPE situation with both articles, for further reasons which I will be sending to paid-en-wp (WP:OUTING). I would give them the benefit of the doubt here that they didn't really know what to do/how to talk, but they've received two COI templates and they have communicated with people when articles were nominated for deletion (which are the only times they have communicated). They have also removed COI/Advert tags from at least the Simply Business article (I only discovered that they had even edited that article when going through their contributions). I attempted to clean up the Cambridge Precision article, but it looks rough. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 12:12, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Can confirm that the evidence sent to paid-en-wp@ shows a financial COI. Since he's already received and ignored multiple notices, I've blocked, though I'm not opposed to an unblock if he starts communicating and following the rules. – Joe (talk) 10:56, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Kay Firth-Butterfield[edit]

• Kay Firth-Butterfield (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• K200620 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Ksafaa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Heavy on the autobio and lack of NPOV; K200620 claims to be the subject, and the other account is an S.P.A. which never edited on any other topic. The lede is clunky. There are lots of sweeping claims of expertise and fame, and not much actual article improvement going on. Apparently some people are above italicizing The New York Times, far less wikilinking to it. Orange Mike | Talk 17:49, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

The second account, while stale, was created only a day after the first one. I've left {{uw-agf-sock}} notices for each of them. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 14:30, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Ketanji Brown Jackson[edit]

Just noting that there is an (Redacted) on a COI issue. I assumed I'd find something here. There is discussion on the article's talk page. Hobit (talk) 20:05, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Indeed, all the articles by the editor in question, who has been indeffed, need to be checked for POV. Coretheapple (talk) 20:08, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Looks like this was so high-profile, this board was by-passed. --SVTCobra 23:50, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

While I am somewhat of a militant on COI issues and have been criticized for that, I was surprised to see this editor indeffed, I'm a bit rusty on COI issues and perhaps I'm missing something. Coretheapple (talk) 22:56, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Lack of communication by editor. If they were engaged and acknowledged the COI, no need for the block but as its technically UPE, which is also a ToS violation, the ban is pretty much automatic until they disclose on-wiki.Slywriter (talk) 23:04, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

But the account in question was essentially doxed. That's what struck me about this. In fact, I don't see how you can block an undisclosed paid editor (and this one never admitted to it) without doxing. I had never seen such a block before, based on an external site doxing, but again, I am rusty and maybe this is now permitted. We've had a number of situations in the past in which paid editing was suspected, but which could not have been revealed without doxing. That was a "no-go zone" and I was always scrupulous about avoiding such things, lest I get my head handed to me. Coretheapple (talk) 18:07, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

RepresentUs[edit]

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

I don't even know how I ended up on the RepresentUs page, but I did and when I did I saw that there was a picture of Jennifer Lawrence in the infobox. I thought it was pretty obvious that it shouldn't be there so I removed it. Tomwsulcer replaced it so I took it out again and started a discussion on the talk page (which is what I think we're supposed to do in such cases). The ensuing conversation at Talk:RepresentUs#Jennifer Lawrence in the infobox has made me look at the content of the page. The talk page shows that it RepresentUs has been edited by paid editors. It reads like it was written by RepresentUs and Jennifer Lawrence's PR person. Jennifer Lawrence's name shows up at least 10 times in the page, which is much more than Josh Silver, the Founder/Executive Chairman. It was suggested to me that I could bring this here to get the page reviewed. I am *not* saying that Tomwsulcer has a conflict of interest, but the number of times he has included Jennifer Lawrence in the page is uncalled for and, to my mind, strange. Polycarpa aurata (talk) 04:41, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot to say that the Board of Directors listed in the page does not agree with what RepresntUs has on their web site. Polycarpa aurata (talk) 04:45, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Tomwsulcer has been editing for a long time and has made significant contributions, but I would like to note that he has been reported here before for an unrelated COI concern. Miracusaurs (talk) 05:55, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

This is an editing dispute, not a COI concern. The RepresentUs article is well-referenced and accurate and fair. Since what they do is good and positive, working against political corruption, the text reflects that. I'm a revamper; the earlier version of the article was in sad shape with 53 references, many of them dubious, so I revamped it. It went from 29K bytes to 89K bytes. Now it has 95 solid references. With all that text, images were needed, so I included a few more. Since the nonprofit has attracted the active support of numerous celebrities, including Jennifer Lawrence, images of celebrities belong on this page. They're a big part of what the story is about. If Jennifer Lawrence comes up repeatedly in the text, it's because the references reflect that -- she's an active board member who gets much media attention for her support. I write under my real name, unlike Polycarpa, so it is easy to check with RepresentUs to see if I'm an employee there. I'm not. Like I said, this is an editing dispute.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:44, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Tomwsulcer that this is a content dispute, not a COI issue. Making statements that an organization is objectively "good and positive", however, speaks to a lack of WP:NPOV especially from someone who tripled the size of the article in a "revamp". I agree with Miracusaurs, Jennifer Lawrence's photo does not belong in the infobox. If an image of her is necessary, it should be worked into the body of the article. --SVTCobra 14:13, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree Lawrence doesn't belong in the infobox but her image does belong in the article. At present it's not there. About POV: as a revamper, I checked every reliable reference that I could. None of them were negative. Why? Because fighting political corruption is good. If I had found negative references, I would have put them in. So if the piece feels like a PR piece because, well, that's not my fault, since the overwhelming consensus is that fighting political corruption is a good thing; it's not just my point of view; it's pretty much everybody's POV.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:22, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

@Tomwsulcer:, if everyone was against political corruption, it wouldn't exist, but let's assume for the sake of argument that it is a universal good thing. That does not translate into RepresentUs as necessarily being "good and positive". There are definitely people who question RepresentUs and their claims of being non-partisan. If the article reads like a PR piece and you revamped the entire thing, it is absolutely your fault. Per policy you are to avoid advocacy, promotion, and propaganda. (NB: I have not read the entire article and do not know if it reads like a PR piece or not.) --SVTCobra 15:17, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

@SVTCobra: show me a negative reliable reference about RepresentUs and I'll put it in. And yes, about political corruption, everybody will say they're against it, but there are a few secretly who benefit from political corruption. Like, hmmm, many politicians. But they won't say that in the news media, so there aren't any references. About being nonpartisan: show me a reliable reference that says they're not a non-partisan outfit, and I'll be glad to put it in. Just that they've had Tea Party supporters in their demonstrations alongside progressives. And, in a dispute about an article's content, how about reading the article? Is that too much to ask?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:27, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

@Tomwsulcer: I am trying to stay out of the content dispute, but this article sounds like evidence of partisanship. --SVTCobra 17:07, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Tomwsulcer, I'm sorry if this is in the wrong place, but this is what was suggested to me. Apart from your edits, Thomasheath, the user who created the page seems likely to have worked for RepresentUs, based on their edits. Joshua Graham Lynn is probably the same Joshua Graham Lynn who co-founded the organization. Then there's Representusngo, Representuswiki, RepUsNGO, and Represent.Us. The whole history of this page seems sketchy. I don't know where to ask this, but I would like someone neutral to review the page to ensure that it is not just an ad for RepresentUs. Polycarpa aurata (talk) 16:57, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Right, in the past, there have been attempts by connected people to edit the page. No doubt about that. Great investigative analysis, Sherlock. That was what prompted me to think about a revamp to get rid of the COI material. So I did it. I removed the junk. The article is good now. I am not a paid staffer of this organization. It is a nonprofit -- so they probably don't have any money to pay us Wikipedians anyway. Plus I have never accepted money for any of my writings in Wikipedia for the past 13+ years. So, why not do some research, Polycarpa aurata whoever you are behind your handle. You don't have to take my word for it -- do the work -- check every reference -- it's all there. If you find slanted stuff, why not deal with it rather than wasting peoples time here on the COI page. Why ask "somebody neutral" to review the page -- why not review it yourself, or are you saying that you're not neutral?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:09, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Tomwsulcer, I find your comments extremely rude. I don't have any political or other bias against this group. I'm not an experienced user so I wanted someone with more experience to look at things. To be frank, I think the page was much better before you started editing it. That version only mentioned Jennifer Lawrence once. Polycarpa aurata (talk) 17:51, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

@Tomwsulcer: I was the one that suggested Polycarpa start a discussion here. I understand it's not fun to be taken to noticeboards, but there's no problem wanting more eyes on an article that has clearly had COI issues in the past. ––FormalDude talk 20:23, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

@FormalDude: thanks for weighing in, and please don't beat yourself up. It's hard to know what is a COI dispute and what is a content dispute, and to gauge whether contributors here are working to improve the encyclopedia or are here to pick POV fights. It's just how the process works.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:39, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

@Tomwsulcer: it sounds like you might be saying that I am here "to pick a POV fight". Is that what you are saying? Polycarpa aurata (talk) 22:02, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

No, they're just saying it's difficult to differentiate sometimes. ––FormalDude talk 22:32, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

While I'm reluctant to get involved here, there are some anomalies that it would be nice to see addressed. The previous COI discussion involving this editor was unresolved after he disappeared for a couple of months, but some of the last discussions essentially demonstrated an unwillingness or inability to acknowledge the difference between editing articles about things someone has a tangential connection to (e.g. a restaurant once eaten at) and editing articles that clearly come under the COI guidelines (e.g. creation of an article about an immediate family member). To then have this editor reappear with a specific focus on one particular organisation whose article has a history of COI editing, including inserting repetitive promotionally worded links into various articles (see the repeated use of "nonprofit nonpartisan anti-corruption organization" inserted into the articles about Michael Douglas, Gerrymandering in the US, and Anti-corruption where no other similar organisations are mentioned) raises some questions that I would like to see clarified here if possible. Melcous (talk) 11:55, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Michael Douglas is *not* a board member of RespectUs. I think it is misleading to have a quote from one of their videos presented as his own words. He is a person reading a script, not speaking for himself. I have taken out the whole thing. Perhaps it is worth mentioning that he works with the group, but what Tomwsulcer inserted was completely wrong. Polycarpa aurata (talk) 16:45, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm concerned that Newsweek is featured in the lede. Doesn't inspire confidence of throughly vetting sources. The Missions and Leadership are basically WP:ABOUTSELF ripped from reliable sources regurgitating the subject's own words. I stopped at that point since not seeing obvious COI just potentially poor source selectionSlywriter (talk) 20:23, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Melcous I very much agree that the issues in the previous discussion should be addressed, as I was also very upset that Tom simply up and left for months instead of addressing his prior problems. (Even though that discussion was started by a sock, that person had a very good point) wizzito | say hello! 00:24, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

In this (back-to-back edits). Tomsulcer selectively copied part of this COIN discussion to the talk page. I can only speculate the motivation was to show they had prevailed on COIN. Whether or not I am correct, it seems like a highly inappropriate way to interact with editors at Talk:RepresentUs. --SVTCobra 01:42, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Matthew Parish[edit]

• Matthew Parish (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Draft:Kuwaiti videos affair (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 94.189.147.212 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 89.216.22.249 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) added by SVTCobra 21:54, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
• Pandypandy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Added by Cordless Larry (talk) 21:59, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
• 87.116.175.25 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - added by Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:11, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
• 89.216.17.7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) added by User:TylerBurdenUser talk:TylerBurden 22:06, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
• 89.216.113.103 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) added by Cordless Larry (talk) 08:15, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Not for the first time, the Matthew Parish article is being whitewashed. 84.66.126.198 (talk) 19:47, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

I feel constrained to point out that the IP removing the material lodged an unusually explicit legal threat in their recent edit summary, asking for address information so as to effect service. I asked for them to apologize on their talk page, but we'll see if my call is heeded. Just a note that I have not had much of a chance to look into the substance here. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 19:59, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

I've applied page protection. If another admin disagrees with this decision and feels that the removal of material is justified, please feel free to undo the protection. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:28, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

@Cordless Larry: Was it necessary to all the way to full protection? Cheers, --SVTCobra 21:28, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

The issue is that when selecting a protection rationale, edit warring (which was happening) is only available as an option when applying full protection, not semi-protection, SVTCobra. Otherwise, I would agree. Again, if other administrators or editors thinks this is heavy-handed, I'm happy to give way. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:43, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

That's using the preset options, I should clarify. I could manually force it to semi-protection. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:52, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Ah, yes, Larry, I see now there are more parties to this, one of which I added above (uses the same legalese). The OP only reported an IP with 2 edits. Cheers, --SVTCobra 21:54, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, and looking at the recent article history there's also a registered account who's made similar edits and that could be used to get around semi-protection. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:58, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

I notified Pandypandy of this discussion. --SVTCobra 22:25, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

See previous discussions: Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive271#Matthew_Parish (2018) and Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive330#Matthew_Parish (2021) Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:38, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

And also this board's previous discussion Archive 175. --SVTCobra 21:42, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

I have major concerns about the draft Pandypandy (who clearly has a COI with respect to Parish given their edit history) is working on, Draft:Kuwaiti videos affair. Parrish is a participant in the legal proceedings, and Pandypandy is clearly trying to use the article to exonorate Parish for his role in the affair. I have no opinion on the truth of the matter, but I don't think Pandypandy can be trusted to write a neutral unbiased account of the proceedings, potentially there are also BLP issues for the other participants. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:41, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

I echo this, getting strong WP:NOTHERE signals from this. --TylerBurden (talk) 08:37, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

IP blocked for legal threats. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:02, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Pandypandy has now published the draft the about "videos affair" and has removed the COI notice from it, and has modified the Parish article, which now states in Wikipedia's voice and based on a single source: "He is assumed to be a member of the British Secret Intelligence Service". Cordless Larry (talk) 07:57, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

What I'm wondering is if all of these IP's are Pandypandy or if it's a group of people closely working together, if it's the former surely sockpuppet and block evasion sanctions can be placed. --TylerBurden (talk) 10:15, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

It is quite detailed insider knowledge in the Draft:Kuwaiti videos affair draft article. I was wondering how the author would get to hold of such information. A lot of it is not in the mainstream news. scope_creep^Talk 11:29, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

One of the sites that's used as a source in that draft is called The Paladins, which is apparently going to be a solicitors firm led by Parish and where I found this about Wikipedia. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:30, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Blocks issued. The article needs good editors to bring it into shape--and who knows, we might have to protect it afterwards. Drmies (talk) 02:11, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Now, that Kuwaiti affair draft--I'm kind of itching to just delete the whole thing as a synthesized POV-y collection of BLP violations. I assume that some of you (TylerBurden, User:scope_creep, Dumuzid, Hemiauchenia, Cordless Larry) have read it more carefully than me--just say the word. Alternately, someone could go through and remove all the YouTube links, and all the links to that weird "Paladins" site (which is absolutely unacceptable here), and see what's left and what we can do with it. I just removed all the primary documents, and I'm getting a good idea now of all the things that are wrong with that article. Drmies (talk) 02:28, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Madhyamam[edit]

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

This user was trying to whitewash Madhyamam newspaper, a mouthpiece of Kerala chapter of the Jamaat-e-Islami Hind, by removing content that cites its affiliation to the organization and criticism on glorification of Taliban - [14][15][16] along with the addition of highly questionable claim that "It is India's first international newspaper" with a non-RS to conform with their official promotional claim - it is unknown on what criteria they are claiming it. Digging further, the user was found to be a WP:SPA for "maintaining" and promotion of the newspaper. Also adds spam links on other articles [17][18][19][20][21][22]. (Redacted). Suhail Aerath's google results shows that he is the SEO Analyst of Madhyamam. It was only recently that their TV channel MediaOne TV was banned by the government based on intelligence report [23][24]. 2409:4073:2003:B090:91BE:84D1:82D3:F799 (talk) 09:36, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Please read WP:OUTING. --SVTCobra 19:10, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Bhargav Sri Prakash[edit]

• Sheila Sri Prakash (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Bhargav Sri Prakash (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• FriendsLearn (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Pastacho (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 122.164.176.41 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 116.73.146.172 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 60.243.47.48 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 27.5.112.207 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 60.243.18.139 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 27.5.85.11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 60.243.28.178 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 60.243.28.178 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 115.97.100.88 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Literally dozens of other IP addresses it's not constructive to list

I was alerted to this COI situation by an extremely suspicious edit by Pastacho (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to the Metaverse article. The user seems to be a SPA focused on the life of Bhargav Sri Prakash across a number of years and posts very promotional material. The wikipedia articles of Bhargav and his mother Sheila are very WP:PROMO and I do in fact believe they fail GNG. The promotional edits mostly come from IP addresses, I figure that the Pastacho account was used because I requested that Metaverse be semi-protected a while back (ironically to stop all the promotional editing). BrigadierG (talk) 15:39, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Oh, my! The two articles (ignoring the issue of notability) look extremely promotional. The images seem to be on Commons via Flickr whitewashing. This is quite some mess. --SVTCobra 16:10, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello, I do not have conflict of interest issues to disclose with Bhargav Sri Prakash, Sheila Sri Prakash or metaverse. In my defense, I will share that I am graduate of college of engineering, guindy and that I started editing Wikipedia when I was a student at CEG. My interest in Wikipedia started with topics relate to College of Engineering, Guindy, Anna University, famous faculty and alumni. Bhargav Sri Prakash is listed as a notable alumnus of CEG according to the alumni association ^[1]

Not sure if because I am a CEG graduate it is making my contributions to CEG institution wiki page or that of other alumni be reversible because of conflict of interest. If so, I apologize. I did not know that I should not edit fellow alumni my alma mater pages. I generally follow topics related to AI/Web3.0 because I am in IT field. I do edit without logging in most of the time but I live in Singapore. I got the interesting engineering article^[2] via a WhatsApp group. When I googled metaverse the Wikipedia article came up. Since the Interesting Engineering came many months ago (6th October 2021) and it was from a magazine i follow online, I thought I should add it because i recognized bhargav sri prakash's name. I must highlight that my edit which has been reverted was mostly about the Education application of Metaverse at University of Michigan.

There are numerous articles in India's top newspapers and news channels that I think may support notability of Bhargav Sri Prakash. I list a few for consideration of anyone who wants to review.

• https://www.timesnownews.com/health/article/indian-health-tech-pioneer-develops-the-worlds-first-digital-vaccine-candidate-for-covid/630113
• https://www.thehindu.com/features/metroplus/play-and-learn/article4500838.ece
• https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/now-digital-vaccines-to-help-promote-healthy-eating-in-kids/articleshow/80010923.cms
• https://www.expresshealthcare.in/covid19-updates/our-digital-vaccines-build-resistance-to-covid-19-causing-hygiene-related-behaviours/424541/
• https://www.thehindu.com/children/fooya-app-inculcates-healthy-diets-among-children/article31099233.ece
• https://www.news18.com/news/buzz/a-chennai-based-companys-game-app-is-teaching-kids-how-to-eat-healthy-and-stay-fit-3508553.html

To your other point, yes, I have made edits to Sheila Sri Prakash in the past because she is also Anna University School of Architecture graduate. I do not have any conflict of interest with her or her work in architecture. Here are a few articles that seem to suggest that her accomplishments demonstrate levels of notability

• https://www.reuters.com/article/us-india-property-idUSKBN1CE15E
• https://www.thehindu.com/features/homes-and-gardens/dancing-about-architecture/article7872561.ece
• https://www.re-thinkingthefuture.com/know-your-architects/a648-sheila-sri-prakash-indias-first-woman-to-establish-her-own-architectural-practice/
• http://www.madrasmusings.com/vol-29-no-22/profile-of-an-architect/

If there is anything I can do to help, please let me know. If I should not edit these pages, I fully respect the community's decision and will not do so anymore. Best regards, Pastacho (talk) 07:57, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

This may be the case of related topics being related. I don't think that @Pastacho has a COI—based on their edit history. FWICT, their edits are not bad (with the exception of this one adding promotional language). But Pastacho, I would suggest you reread WP:RS to improve your edits. SWinxy (talk) 00:00, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you talk for suggesting me to read WP:RS. I have read but will study further but I think Indian english writing style may be bit different. I am having a question whether I am not supposed to edit the articles pertaining to College of Engineering, Guindy or the other famous students/faculty/alumni because I am an alumni of CEG. Is that COI? WP:RS does not seem to clarify my doubt? The article for Bhargav Sri Prakash has been nominated for deletion^[3] because of my edit to metaverse^[4]. I am not sure if there is any thing I can should or not do. I definitely do not want to be the one who made a mistake that caused article of one famous CEG alumni and Chennai person who is doing some good for society to become deleted. Feeling guilty:( there are many articles which I found on google search which are not appearing in Bhargav Sri Prakash wiki article. Can those be submitted as proof of notability. This reference can be added to the article or because Edex Indian Express and Chennai there is COI?

• https://www.edexlive.com/people/2019/may/31/chennai-based-parent-develops-an-app-that-gets-kids-to-fight-junk-monsters-and-count-their-calories-6373.html
• https://lifestyle.livemint.com/relationships/raising-parents/now-an-app-to-educate-children-on-healthy-food-choices-111615007066164.html
• https://www.news-medical.net/news/20210211/Pediatric-dietary-mobile-game-improved-childrene28099s-short-term-food-choices.aspx

It would be helpful to have your advice Cobra talk SWinxy Talk and any others who are having more experience with such topics. Thanks and best regards Pastacho (talk) 07:41, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Don't fret Pastacho. Students/alumni generally not considered to have a COI, but an potential COI, meaning that you have a relation, but do not need to exercise disclosure of the relation. You are free to continue editing. My suggestion to read RS was to improve the quality of your citations (i.e. what to keep and what to toss). SWinxy (talk) 18:23, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

32.215.119.28[edit]

• Grand Central Terminal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Grand Central Terminal art (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• 32.215.119.28 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

32.215.119.28 is a likely undisclosed COI. Editing-in promotional material about John Canning & Co.: diff diff 2. IP registers to near Canning's headquarters. Recommend an IP block. ɱ (talk) 18:28, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

I notified the IP of this discussion. --SVTCobra 19:21, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

North Florida Christian School[edit]

• North Florida Christian School (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Kah09h (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This WP:SPA COI account ("I went their for 14 years, taught there for 2 years and my son will be attending there next year") is determined to edit this article to reflect a favorable view of the school (which was founded as a segregation academy) and ignores advice about topics like the fact that other articles exist in a less than perfect state. Orange Mike | Talk 19:01, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Kirspring[edit]

• Pirelli Tire Building (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• 777 Main Street (Hartford, Connecticut) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Kirspring (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Kirspring is a likely undisclosed COI. SPA, editing-in unnotable material, external link about the developer Becker & Becker: diff diff 2. Recommend warning, if unheeded - followed by block. ɱ (talk) 19:14, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Norco College Logo Update[edit]

• Article name (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• username (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Replace this with a brief explanation of the situation. LeslieReneeVargas (talk) 22:58, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello Everyone. The Norco College logo thumbnail is not the correct logo. How do I get the correct logo on there? https://www.norcocollege.edu/about/Documents/identity/LogoIdentity.pdf

@LeslieReneeVargas: See Wikipedia:Help_desk#Norco_College_Logo. This is not the proper venue. GoingBatty (talk) 02:28, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

User:Onel5969[edit]

• Draft:Sanjib Baruah (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Onel5969 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• The user Onel5969 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is harassing me with false/baseless allegation of UPE/COI. His/her allegation has/have no evidence at all and he/she is even unable to address his/her allegation against me. I do appeal to WIKI:Admin for a fair resolution.. --NeverTry4Me - TT Page 09:05, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
• Comment: Surely a matter for the WP:ANI noticeboard and not the COIN noticeboard? Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:20, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
• Comment Dear @Djm-leighpark:, kindly refrain from this discussion as you are closely ssocitaed with Onel5969 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I request you to not to be invoolved to support your friend Onel5969 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). --NeverTry4Me - TT Page 09:46, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

@NeverTry4Me: As you've persisted in interferring with one of Onel5969's XfD !votes there is now a thread at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Problems including repeated XfD discussion interference so feel free to make your allegations there. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 10:40, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Royal studios[edit]

• Let's Stay Together (Al Green song) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Royal studios (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• OonaBeans (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Claiming to be ″granddaughter and owner of the rights″ and is seemingly on a campaign to remove any mention of Terry Manning from related articles. TylerBurden (talk) 13:24, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Added OonaBeans, whose username matches the name given by Royal studios and is continuing the whitewashing. Miracusaurs (talk) 02:52, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Sarah Kerr-Dineen[edit]

• Sarah Kerr-Dineen (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Oundle School (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Suffolk J (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User:Suffolk J has an undisclosed COI with the school above and its headmistress, Sarah Kerr-Dineen. After I asked him to disclose the COI on their talk page, they blanked it (diff). They have also been involved in the AfD discussion on the article of Kerr-Dineen (disclosure: and so have I). I have very high certainty regarding this COI, but due to WP:OUTING, I have preferred to send an overview of the situation to paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org. Feel free to leave me a ping when you reply. Pilaz (talk) 19:26, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

SmartStudy / The Pinkfong Company[edit]

• SmartStudy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Baby Shark Live! (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Tpccmt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Pnkfngcomms (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• PinkfongBabyShark (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I have concerns that this company is attempting to promote themselves using Wikipedia, but disregarding CoI rules to do so (or straight up not knowing them), and even got one account softblocked because they did not choose a proper username (Pnkfngcomms). The page Baby Shark Live! was also started by an account with the name of the company and a song they were known for, likely as an attempt at promotion. Content added by the account Tpccmt was also flagged as copyvio from a press release from the company, and the SmartStudy page has a template on it that I added that states that the page may promote the subject without any real information, as I also feel that the page reads like an advertisement. wizzito | say hello! 22:56, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Tpccmt has removed the COI template from the company page. Extremely suspicious. @Tpccmt: I highly suggest you stop editing the Pinkfong Company page immediately and declare your COI. wizzito | say hello! 03:27, 12 February 2022 (UTC)