Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard

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

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

Search the COI noticeboard archives

Help answer requested edits

Category:Wikipedia conflict of interest edit requests is where COI editors have placed the {{edit COI}} template: Wikipedia conflict of interest edit requests Talk:Ada Aharoni Talk:Alameda Belt Line Talk:Australian Maritime College Talk:Madeline Bell (hospital executive) Talk:Black Hawk (Sauk leader) Talk:Cohen Milstein Talk:Creative Planning Talk:The Donkey Sanctuary Talk:Stephan DuCharme Talk:Edge Hill University Talk:Darnell Edge Talk:Empire (magazine) Talk:Globe Life Talk:List of Harvard University people Talk:Jacob Helberg Talk:Human Appeal Talk:Edward D. "Ted" Jones Talk:Kennedy Center Honors Talk:KieranTimberlake Talk:Dafna Lemish Talk:List of compositions for flute Talk:McCain Institute Talk:MongoDB Inc. Talk:Moroccanoil Talk:Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation Talk:Ornge Talk:Barbara Parker (California politician) Talk:Rakefet Russak-Aminoach Talk:Roger Steare Talk:Tenants and Owners Development Corporation Talk:Theatre Development Fund Talk:Lorraine Twohill Talk:United States Postal Service Talk:Dashun Wang Talk:Xsolla Talk:Zions Bancorporation Talk:Zyn

International Churches of Christ

• International Churches of Christ (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• JamieBrown2011 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Meta Voyager (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Psmidi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• XZealous (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

International Churches of Christ is again the subject of COI editing. JamieBrown2011's COI has previously been discussed at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 203#International Churches of Christ. Meta Voyager is part of "a congregation that operates independently, but has a relationship with the International Churches of Christ", as described here. JamieBrown2011 has today removed material critical of the church from the article and added mention of the testimony of a witness saying that church isn't a cult, the inclusion of which was previously discussed at Talk:International Churches of Christ#RfC on Singapore court case and lacked consensus. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:45, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

"cult" is a really useless term, it just provides condemnation. Secretlondon (talk) 22:13, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

There are reliable sources describing it as such, but ultimately that's an article content debate, whereas the issue here is editors associated with the church editing the article to portray it in a more positive light. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:16, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree with SecretLondon. A simple google search of the word “cult” provides hundreds if not thousands of references describing multiple different church groups as “cults”. JamieBrown2011 (talk) 07:43, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

I also disagree with CordlessLarry, there has been lots of discussion, over a period of multiple days, if not weeks, on the Talk page and consensus was clear over the changes that that needed to be made.JamieBrown2011 (talk) 07:54, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

@JamieBrown2011, you've advised that you have a conflist of interest. Per WP:COIEDIT, you should not be editing the article and you need to disclose your conflict of interest when involved with the article. Your only interactions with the article should be through the talk page and where you wish to request any changes to the article you ought to utilise the {{edit COI}} template in talk to make your requests. TarnishedPath^talk 12:25, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

It's nothing to do with google. Academic writing in religion would/should never use the word cult. However, for Wikipedia. if a reliable source called it a cult we could use that, but some newspapers are not great on these issues. Secretlondon (talk) 12:25, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

I'd certainly encourage Wikipedia to avoid using the word "cult" as much as possible (which is in pretty much all cases). The word is unencyclopedic and uneducational. "Cult" is clickbait (or its equivalent for pre-Internet uses) that businesses deploy to grab attention and sell copy and that cultural mainstreams use to marginalize socially constructed "others" (link to Megan Goodwin, "Making the American Religious Monster", presentation at 2022 Fairfield University American Studies Conference). A similar argument is made more formally in Judith Wisenfield's New World A-Coming (New York University Press, 2017), esp. pp. 12–13. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 08:21, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Sometimes cult is appropriate; there a few (see Category:Cults) and it's difficult to imagine an article on e.g. the Kidwelly sex cult that doesn't use the word 'cult'! More frequently, it's appropriate to discuss how/whether something has been classified as a cult in RS (e.g. for Sahaja Yoga). In general it's movement members who object most to the term. In fact for Sahaja Yoga proponents were very keen to use the word cult to say the movement was not a cult when they thought a Belgian court had ruled that way. When it was discovered the court in fact ruled the other way, their enthusiasm for any mention of cults waned. Bon courage (talk) 09:06, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

I continue to think it most appropriate to heed the most reliable sources, which for this topic would be publications by academics in religious studies. As far as how to write about such topics, by way of example, Goodwin wrote an entire academically book about sex abuse in religions without using the word "cult" (as she mentions in her paper "Making the American Religious Monster"; the book being Abusing Religion [Rutgers University Press, 2020]). Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 09:55, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

In this case, we do have scholarly publications that use the word cult in relation to the subject. However, this is more a matter for the article talk page than here, where the issue under scrutiny is COI editing. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:38, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Indeed books which aren't about cults won't use the word "cult" (and religions which have sex abuse scandals aren't necessarily cults just because of that). Scholars like Lorne L. Dawson are interested in cults and write about them naming them as such. Bon courage (talk) 12:50, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Cordless Larry, a Wikipedia administrator, has mischaracterized my involvement in a minor edit as a Conflict of Interest. In support of my request that his actions be reversed, I offer the following additional information. I simply repositioned for readability purposes a reliably sourced single sentence about an expert witness that had already been written and published by another editor in a paragraph authored by a third editor, Nowa. Prior to any editing of the subject paragraph, Nowa consented to edits being proposed to that effect. That’s it – I made a minor edit to improve the article by cutting and pasting an already published sentence. Cordless Larry references my response to a welcome letter I received from another administrator that included a suggestion that I disclose any conflicts of interest. In relevant part, here's a more complete description of my disclosure: (1) I disclosed my membership in a congregation that has a relationship with the International Churches of Christ, (2) I stated that I have never been compensated as an employee or consultant to the church, (3) I shared that I have a general interest in Restoration Churches in the USA, (4) I informed that I have legal training and experience and am familiar with conflicts of interest, (5) I expressed my view that advocacy on a topic that you care about does not constitute a conflict of interest and (6) I have confined my comments to the Talk page of the International Churches of Christ article until a consensus for change has been reached. I’m confident that a review of my comments on the Talk page will show that I have researched and reported only on Wikipedia policies with an intent to improve the article. I respectfully request that Cordless Larry remove his posting about conflicts of interest as they pertain to me. Meta Voyager (talk) 11:48, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Having received no response to my request to remove the posting about me from this COI Noticeboard, I have reached out on this topic directly to Cordless Larry on his Talk page in accordance with WP:ADMIN. Meta Voyager (talk) 14:19, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Meta Voyager, you appear to believe that because you don't have a financial relationship with the ICOC, you don't have a conflict of interest. However, an editor doesn't have to have a financial relationship to have a COI, as explained at WP:COI: "Any external relationship can trigger a conflict of interest". Cordless Larry (talk) 19:54, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your message and further explanation on COI. I've already stated that I don't believe I have an actual conflict of interest and, if I did, most conflicts are resolved by voluntary disclosure. However, I intend to honor the spirit of the COI guidance and comment only on the Talk page until a consensus is reached on any issues that might concern me. Meta Voyager (talk) 22:10, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

I've added Psmidi, an SPA with a COI who showed up on the article talk page today, several years after their last edit. It wouldn't surprise me if off-Wikipedia co-ordination between ICOC members was going on here. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:39, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Adding XZealous, another new editor who's very keen to dismiss any concerns about use of non-third party sources, removing a template highlighting that problem despite having its relevance explained to them on the talk page. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:15, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

See seemingly related discussion at Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest#COI label vs Good Faith editing. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:43, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

This is actually a great illustration. An editor with an apparent COI claimed they are stone-cold neutral trying to change Wikipedia's guidelines on COIs to make COI editing okay (for, you know, self-assessed stone-cold neutral editors with COIs). Unfortunately among the Wikipedia corps there is a poor understanding of COIs and in particular a common misconception that it's all about the "end result" of content. Bon courage (talk) 09:17, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Indeed. Meta Voyager illustrates this line of thinking with their comment about being a member of the church here. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:56, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Further inappropriate behaviour by Meta Voyager (shutting down an RfC they started while discussion is still ongoing) is noted here and here. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:49, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

User: btphelps with regard to Béla H. Bánáthy

• Béla H. Bánáthy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• White Stag Leadership Development Program (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• btphelps (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Initially, I sensed something was off when I noticed they were inserting self published primary source references into may articles, such as plaskett.family and adding tourism guide like contents. COI was suspected, because they were single handedly responsible for the insertion of the overwhelming majority of that self published personal website blog reference. They've created the article White Stag Leadership Development Program and when I searched articles containing sourcing to Whitestag.org and ran a Wikiblame check for insertion of whitestag.org (such as this example and this 2022 example out of many) I found that btphelps was responsible for most of them. Further research found strong evidence of long term advocacy editing and likely undisclosed paid editing. I've given them a chance to explain, but after a few days, no response. Per Wikipedia policy on outing, I can not name the evidence here, however per the protocol, private evidence has been emailed to Wikipedia functionaries. Graywalls (talk) 06:49, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

btphelps has overlapping interests. This is not a COI. This is simply throwing mud and seeing what sticks.--evrik ^(talk) 21:17, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

@Evrik:, there's sufficient evidence that contradicts that.

Functionary users: Please refer to March 11, 2024 email titled "Off-wiki evidence on user:btphelps for suspected UPE" addressed to

paid-en-wp. Graywalls (talk) 22:23, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

@Evrik:, Please see WP:PE and WP:COI for the meaning of conflict of interest on Wikipedia. You are quick to claim there's no COI, but have you done any checking on your own? While Wikipedia privacy policies doesn't allow the discussion of the specific evidence, anyone who does a bit of their own research on this should easily find the blatant COI between White Stag and the user in question. Graywalls (talk) 17:29, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Ok, so I can now say btphelps is a co-director of White Stag, per their self reveal as they have not had it redacted/oversighted. White stag was founded by Béla H. Bánáthy. Extensively writing about their own organization as well as those closely associated with it and inserting links to contents to the organization they direct as references to numerous related articles is a COI behavior. Graywalls (talk) 18:53, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Graywalls, you act like you smell blood in the water and I can see you are enjoying circling in for the anticipated kill. Exactly which subject do you accuse me of having a COI? You initially accused me of a COI about the Big Sur related articles. I challenged you to prove that and you could not. Because it does not exist. Failing at that and apparently provoked by my refusal to succumb to your attacks, you dug deep and now accuse me of a COI having to do with Bela Banathy and tenuously his founding of the White Stag organization in 1958, which he left to others to run after about 1965. Exactly how did I financially benefit 50+ years later from writing about Bela Banathy? Or the White Stag program?

I first wrote that I was co-director of White Stag in 2008 on WP here. That position lasted for two years. The content on my WP user page that you cite lasted much longer than my volunteer position. I was never employed by that non-profit. It did not then and does not now have any employees. The idea that I might somehow benefit financially from it is laughable. When I was an active volunteer with that organization from 1968-1984 (long before WP existed) and 2008-2009, I paid out thousands of dollars in personal expenses to serve as a adult volunteer and paid hundreds of dollars yearly in fees for the opportunity to serve.

I wish I got paid for writing on WP. It might make up for having to deal with nincompoops like you whose primary work on WP consists of deleting and criticizing what others have contributed. Adversarial, demeaning, patronizing, confrontational editors like you are the reason editors like me with nearly 40,000 edits since 2004 quit.

BTW, when you proposed deleting the White Stag Leadership Development article, did you apply any of the WP concepts of courtesy and strive to notify anybody in the Scouting portal who might have had input over the validity of that article? I certainly didn't have a chance to respond, as I am no longer a regular contributor, due in part to fellow editors like yourself.

Maybe you didn't notice but when I began making contributions to the Bela Banathy article in 2008, he'd been dead for five years. Please, please, I beg you, explain your train of thought that I somehow financially benefitted from writing about Banathy. Who paid me? What proof do you have other than mere suspicion? The weight is in you to prove that UPE exists. This is a serious allegation and you should be prepared to provide solid evidence. Otherwise you are merely wasting everyone's time. I'm holding my breath in anticipation. — btphelps ^{(talk to me) (what I've done)} 01:02, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Pinging @Evrik, Z1720, BusterD, and Ritchie333:, seeking your input. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Btphelps (talk • contribs) 21:25, March 24, 2024 (UTC)

I would say conflict of interest is a spectrum ranging from being paid to edit particular articles (either indirectly or because one's paying job includes keeping the public image polished) through articles about family or friends whose reputations matter to you and onto belonging to a large organization (e.g., Catholic Church or Boy Scouts of America) and on to former connection to just general interest. I don't think Wikipedia frowns on most American citizens editing articles on their state (though if you are the press secretary of the governor, things are getting too close) or on the USA itself or most Catholics editing articles about the Catholic church or alumni editing articles on their university (unless they are adding themselves as prominent alumni). Also Wikipedia CoI has become stricter over time. In other words the boundary shifted. The Béla H. Bánáthy article was created in 2004 (he died in 2003) and not by @Btphelps. He first edited that article in 2008 and seems to have removed some serious POV issues from the article. I also checked his link to his user page in 2008 and he is up front about his connection to White Stag Leadership. I also checked the White Stag Leadership 990 form (2014 [the earliest easily available] and the most recent) and they have no paid employees (and not a huge budget). My judgment is he is not a Paid Editor though there was an admitted connection with White Stag and possible significant CoI at the time, but, the fact he announced the connection makes the fault more minor. My own view without knowing what was in the White Stag Leadership article is that it likely could have been merged into Leadership training (Boy Scouts of America) and that article improved as regards references to third party sources. That Btphelps admires Béla H. Bánáthy is obvious but then most major editors of particular wikipedia articles either admire (or abhor) their subject. There seems to be no evidence (and no money in White Stag Leadership's budget) that he was a paid editor for either article. Erp (talk) 03:49, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

@Erp:, there is evidence some evidence that has already been emailed where sharing those details are allowed. WP:OUTING prevents me from discussing those evidence further. Graywalls (talk) 08:57, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

@Btphelps:, I nominated for deletion and I provided you with a courtesy notice. The article was written entirely based on your organization and it was very much advertorial. I did check for presence of significant coverage in independent reliable sources before I nominated it for deletion. Graywalls (talk) 06:23, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

@Btphelps:, to respond to: This is a serious allegation and you should be prepared to provide solid evidence. since you have not directly introduced yourself by your identity outside of Wikipedia, I have to be careful with what can be posted here since posting anything that connects user name to real life identity is strictly prohibited, unless you explicitly authorize. Even then, I'd feel more comfortable if you introduced yourself first (strictly optional though) before I post it. Graywalls (talk) 13:52, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

I am going to be AFK until next week. Just an FYI, I just posted this: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Graywalls reported by User:Evrik (Result:_) --evrik ^(talk) 03:55, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

For ease of finding it, now Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Graywalls reported by User:Evrik (Result: Declined) -- Pemilligan (talk) 13:45, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

(arbitrary break)

This is also something to look at: Talk:Leadership_training_(Boy_Scouts_of_America)#Pinetreeweb_and_other_non-RS. Btphelps disclosed they're the author of that contents on pinetreeweb. @SandyGeorgia: Graywalls (talk) 15:53, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Please also see discussion of GA reassessment at Talk:Béla_H._Bánáthy/GA2 Graywalls (talk) 15:58, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

WP:COI's def is so broad and vague that it can be easily capitalized on by someone with an axe to grind. Saying there is a COI on someone who has been dead since 2003 is certainly outside the intent of wp:coi. North8000 (talk) 16:00, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Please drop your allegation of "axe to grind". This is not what this is about. I noticed something I believed was a COI, and more probing found more suspected COI. That's all there is to it. Even though the founder is dead, the company he founded is still around and it isn't unusual for companies to want to maintain page on its founders. Graywalls (talk) 16:11, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

It may be interesting to editors here to read some of the comments recently made by arbitrators at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conflict of interest management/Proposed decision#Conflicts of interest. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 08:29, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

@Btphelps:, We haven't heard you comment in a while Do you give permission for editors to publicly share evidence found off-wiki in this discussion even though it may reveal your identity and/or your affiliation with various organizations? Without your explicit consent, those details can't be shared here. Graywalls (talk) 09:45, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

User:Graywalls To quote a retired editor who I much respected:

"I loathe busybodies with too much time on their hands, who spend more time being critical of the postings of others than they do posting their own knowledge. I am the natural enemy of the protocol deletionist; I hate those who intentionally won't seek a creative way to save something potentially useful. If you've been here long enough, you will be involved in deletion discussions. I have had to nominate several, but it is nothing to cheer about; no matter how trivial it may seem to you, it mattered enough to some volunteer editor. Those who take joy in deleting the work of others are psychopaths.

and those who delete factual or useful contributions to an article, that are not vandalism, because it does not fit their own narrow view of what the article should be. If someone puts something on there that might not belong where it is, find a home for it, don't delete it outright. :)" — btphelps ^{(talk to me) (what I've done)} 07:01, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean. Do you mean, yes, or no with regard to permission to post the evidence? Graywalls (talk) 22:26, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

User:Wikimahan

• Draft:Rahul R. Sarma (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Draft:Village Cricket Boy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Wikimahan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Wikimahan seems to be solely focused on promoting "Rahul R. Sarma" and their film "Village Cricket Boy". I draftified both articles due to their lack of sources and hoped to see improvements in that regard. Additionally, they were delivered three notices to disclose their paid editing status, but instead of responding to those requests, they resorted to edit warring by repeatedly resubmitting the draft for review without any improvements.

The account was created last December, but their editing activity only began a few days ago. Initially, they made some edits at Parappukkavu Bhagavathy Temple, Kechery, possibly to reach autoconfirmed status, and then proceeded to create both articles mentioned above. Given their editing experience, they do not appear to be brand new and seem to have knowledge of Wikipedia policies. However, they purposefully ignored notices issued on their talk page and engaged in edit wars.

Moreover, Wikimahan uploaded File:Rahul R. Sarma.jpg as their own work, but the image isn't available anywhere online, indicating a conflict of interest. Therefore, in my opinion, they should be blocked so they can start using their talk page to discuss the nature of their edits. GSS ^💬 13:31, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

I have given one more COI warning, let us wait for one more day and see if they respond. I would have to back Wikimahan's partial block of this article from mainspace if they don't respond appropriately. The AP (talk) 13:47, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Predatory marketing practice detected

• Inosine pranobex (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Isolated_Wanderer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 96AMJL (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I have come across an Indian company called Le Jolly Healthcare engaging in unethical behavior by forcefully inserting its drug's trade name, IsoJol at Inosine pranobex. I have encountered and removed this insertion in the past and most recently today (also discovered the name of the company). Upon further investigation, I discovered that the drug is actually contract manufactured by another company, Themis, for this brand. This practice is clearly predatory marketing by Le Jolly Healthcare. Similar instances of trade name insertion have been observed on other pages such as Diazoxide being labeled as Balila and Flucytosine as Cytoflu, where they even included the drug's price alongside the company name. It is quiet imperative that we establish a rigorous monitoring system to halt such practices, especially considering these are prescription drugs. The fact that a trading company, rather than the manufacturer, is engaging in such manipulative tactics clearly highlights the pervasive manipulative nature of the pharmaceutical industry. Charlie (talk) 03:01, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

At Flucytosine's page, there is explicit mention of the exorbitant pricing of the drug in the US market, attributed to the monopolistic practices of a single manufacturer, with each tablet priced at $70.46. This Indian company inserted its per-capsule cost US$2.00 with its name and packing details (100 tablets per pack). This is a blatant violation of Wikipedia. Charlie (talk) 03:02, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Why is User:96AMJL involved here? Allan Nonymous (talk) 18:06, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

I was edited that page on 19, and 20th Dec, I added some researches, and citations, not added its price, but when Charlie Mehta removed all my edits, I realize something wrong, after that I didn't edited this page. Please check view history. 96AMJL (talk) 02:42, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Taimi

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

---

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

I asked on IRC and was told to crosspost here. Oleksii added some Core Beliefs and Key Features today. I figured it was probably just copy-pasted from somewhere else but couldn't find any hits and the helper didn't either.

When I looked at the history, I spotted that a year ago very similar beliefs and feature descriptions claiming to be written by the Taimi PR Team were added, so Oleksii is probably also doing undisclosed paid editing. Nyakase 👩‍🔬🐈‍⬛‍ 12:47, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

That seems likely. But OleksiiKhimich was first advised of our COI guidelines today (twenty minutes before you notified them of this discussion), and hasn't edited since, so I don't think there's any need for further action at this point. – Joe (talk) 14:03, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough. I had overlooked it since it started off as a regular welcome message. Nyakase 👩‍🔬🐈‍⬛‍ 14:09, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

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

Wildlife Conservation Film Festival

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

---

• Wildlife Conservation Film Festival (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• WCFF (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Not sure if you still report an account that hasn't been active in a couple of years, but I felt it should be brought to attention to someone. The account listed above made only two edits to this article in 2019 whose username is an anagram matching with the name of the article. I had undone their edits, in particular the lead and the first section of the article. This was the first edit and second edit. The latter's adding of nonexistent categories was later undone.

The article still has the COI tag on it, but it was tagged before the edits of this account with some concerns about the article creator who was reported to this very noticeboard in 2019 about other edits. While this article wasn't mentioned in that discussion, however, this account, WCFF, started editing over a month later after it was tagged. Pinging Duffbeerforme who was the editor who tagged this article for insight. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 17:33, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

It's too stale to action as a username issue. If someone had reported at the time it would have bene blocked for promo. Secretlondon (talk) 19:41, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

WikiCleanerMan You could nominate for deletion if the article doesn't meet GNG. I don't think there is much more to say about the authors. The article creator was a suspected paid editor and the second username was named after the festival. TSventon (talk) 21:28, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

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

User:RRichie and FairVote, instant runoff voting, et cetera

FairVote is a political advocacy organization that supports instant runoff voting. For the record, I happen to believe IRV is a neat idea. At any rate, we list this group's founder as Robert Richie. A buddy of mine tipped me off about something rather curious in the edit history of a few IRV-related articles:

The FairVote article's history has quite a few edits from RRichie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), whose other edits are predominantly to articles like Instant-runoff voting, Ranked-choice voting in the United States, FairVote, et cetera. Edits to other pages often involve events related to IRV.

It seems to be the case that this person's COI editing has been done under their real name since 2008, making this a somewhat strange case; nevertheless, I think something should be done about it, so I am opening a thread here. jp×g🗯️ 14:06, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

I think technically we're supposed to ask them to identify to info-en per WP:IMPERSONATE. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:56, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

His personal Wikipedia article over at Rob Richie seems... off. It's a resumé, includes at least one edit from User:RRichie, and was created from scratch by an anonymous Wiki user.

Several edits appear to be clear conflicts of interest, all relating to a campaign that User:RRichie was paid to work on:

1. Attempting to downplay a ballot initiative that caused a substantial electoral defeat.
2. Attempting to paint said ballot initiative as being motivated by a single sole loser.
3. ...Attempting to delete information about controversy surrounding IRV.
4. Deleting information about the Maine Supreme Court finding IRV unconstitutional.

This also raises questions about whether this is just one person, or something FairVote has been doing more broadly. How do we know other editors to articles like instant-runoff voting aren't also being paid? It definitely seems unusually light on criticism, given the poor reputation IRV has with social choice theorists... –Maximum Limelihood Estimator 20:45, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

This edit suggests a clear COI with FairVote.

"...check out FairVote's link on universities and colleges. We now know of at least 41 colleges and universities where student governments use instant runoff voting, as documented on our site..."

- Boardwalk.Koi (talk) 17:55, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Another UPE rabbithole to jump down

• Draft:Matthew Brown (businessperson) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Danoy123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

If someone feels like bonking a probable UPE tree, I noticed a new redirect from Danoy123 while doing NPP who very neatly added 10 short descriptions using a helper script to become autoconfirmed (most likely to game the system) and then immediately resume editing a draft which was previously declined at AfC (and unsurprisingly only edited by another SPA), moving it to mainspace and then back to draft shortly after. The interesting thing is that all of the articles that the account added short descriptions to are themselves mostly edited by SPAs and written in a promotional tone (including by ultimately blocked user User:Reddragon7 who was a disclosed paid editor) and in many cases those accounts have edited other promotional articles, and so on. I haven't tested how deep the rabbithole goes, but WP:DUCK makes me smell a rat. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrigadierG (talk • contribs) 01:59, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

I'd second this, maybe open a WP:SPI? Allan Nonymous (talk) 18:59, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I dunno, I wouldn't feel comfortable running a CU on this. The ten articles Danoy123 edited were created years ago, so if this is all one person or a network then they have a very good memory and kind of went out of their way to raise suspicion. On the other hand, they're all American businessmen, so maybe Danoy123 just scanned a category for pages missing short descriptions? If we tell people they can't create an article until they've made ten edits, we shouldn't be surprised that some of them make ten edits in order to create an article. It doesn't necessarily imply ill intent. – Joe (talk) 10:42, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

The Arabian Post

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

I came across this edit and took a closer look. This account seems to be used entirely to post citations to content farms owned by a marketing company. Also posted about this in the RS noticeboard to confirm my conclusion that this is not a reliable source. Avgeekamfot (talk) 11:04, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

• I've blocked them. It probably would be a good idea to search for references to those sites and remove them. – Joe (talk) 11:45, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Nino Segarra

• Nino Segarra (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Julissasegarra (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Editor appears to be a relative of the subject, trying to add non-netural original research.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 19:21, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

User:Gladiator-Citizen

• Gladiator-Citizen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Citizen-Gladiator (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The primary purpose of User:Gladiator-Citizen (who previously edited as User:Citizen-Gladiator) on Wikipedia appears to be to edit and/or create Wikipedia articles about himself, family members, close friends/acquaintances, and related corporate entities. The editor now appears to have a desire to remain anonymous, however their identity is pretty clear from their editing history and a past username. I will try to avoid outing them in the below and am happy for any information to be redacted if it's deemed too close to the line.

A sample of the user's edits are below, ranging from less harmful to exceptionally harmful:

• Creating articles about family members with dubious notability and that rely extensively on self-published sources [1]
• Extensive use of self-published sources to embed positive views of the user and related parties as pioneering marriage and funeral officiants, most prominently at Celebrant (Australia) and Civil funeral celebrant. It is difficult to ascertain whether these are poorly-sourced but accurate claims, or are actually inaccurate as well.
• Edits to Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC), which accuse the government agency of wrongful prosecution (and a court of wrongful conviction) of the user and an associated entity. This was in relation to a conviction and fine for price-fixing funeral charges [2].
• Edits to Bill D'Arcy, a convicted child rapist. The editor believes that D'Arcy was the subject of a miscarriage of justice and that one of his child victims lied about being raped [3]. Gladiator-Citizen has made repeated edits to D'Arcy's page pushing that view over a period of ten years, most recently in February 2024. [4][5][6][7]
  • I was unfamiliar with the D'Arcy case before coming across Gladiator-Citizen's edits, but on review it appears that D'Arcy's convictions have been affirmed on multiple occasions and the views held by the editor are not widely shared or reported upon. It is wholly inappropriate for Wikipedia editors to second-guess court convictions based on their own research, especially where that involves unsourced accusations that child rape victims have perjured themselves.
  • The user's edits to Bill D'Arcy's page have repeatedly been reverted, but unfortunately have stayed up sometimes for several months. Multiple other users have tried to engage and explain why they are inappropriate (see here and Talk:Bill D'Arcy), but there appears to be zero understanding on the part of Gladiator-Citizen.

Unfortunately, when I tried to engage with the editor in a pretty neutral manner as to their COI, they responded with a rambling screed that did not address my basic query and showing very little understanding of Wikipedia's basic principles. The user's talkpage shows a history of similar interactions.

Based on this user's undisclosed COI editing and lack of understanding of fundamental policies I think an indef block is warranted. Their most recent edits (particularly that to the ACCC article) show that their editing quality is declining further and the risk of further damage is high given they typically edit in low-traffic subject areas. The content issues can be dealt with separately. ITBF (talk) 12:17, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

This notice should not be on this Noticeboard as the first condition of its presence should be after all respectful dialogue has been exhausted.

I attempted this dialogue and received no response just a disdainful description of my attempt as a “rambling reply”.

TO ITBF. You gave no indication that you had read the content or checked the sources of the entries in question.

Your personal attack on me, apart from being riddled with errors, vague and offensive generalisations, judgmental errors, unsubstantiated slurs, and offensive superior language, seems to me goes against all that Wikipedia recommends by way of respect and a culture of mutual assistance.

I was not going to dignify this personal attack with a reply but it is on a public noticeboard. On the principle that “qui tacet consentire” I feel I must make a reply.

Wikipedia sites for self and family

There are eight websites connected to my family that I know of. I did not create the entry on myself. It was created before I became an editor.

I have made corrections as asked by an editor who stated in a top panel that there were “issues”- “ could someone please correct”.

And almost on the same day as you corresponded with me, another editor, made substantial changes to the site on me. What a coincidence!! )

I did not create the four historical ones in my family covering the period - ca. 1830 to 1914. They have been there for years - long before I became an editor, There are two others which were created totally by other editors. (I might have done a small correction once.)

There was one I did create. Because of the personal connection I submitted it for approval via the “Articles for Creation” process and had to wait several weeks before it ultimately was approved. I created it with great care and impeccable sources and with no possible COI, as the person concerned had been retired for a number of years.

Wikipedia sites for “Friends and Acquaintances”

You accuse me also of creating Wikipedia sites for friends and acquaintances. I deny that totally.

I looked through some of them.

Roger Pryke – arguably the most influential Australian catholic of the Vatican II era. written long after he was dead.

Alan Lind - arguably the most popular bipartisan politician of his time - written long after he was dead.

Peter Wright --six times world squash champion in his division.

Jenny Hocking – author of the authoritative biographies of Lionel Murphy and Gough Whitlam. Noted for her long legal fight to release the Palace Letters at the time of the Dismissal.

Ian Heads OAM – author of at least 50 books on sport and sports people in Australia. Hall of Fame honoree at the Sydney Cricket Ground.

Michael Costigan - editor, writer, journalist, catholic activist, trustee of the David White estate.

Moira Rayner - original commissioner for equal opportunity, lawyer, commentator, author.

Alex Hutchinson - saxophonist and clarinetist in the renowned Graham Bell All Stars and many other noteworthy bands. Activist President of the Musicians Union.

Father Ted Kennedy (from stub) - parish priest of Redfern, prominent in the struggle for aboriginal rights. Written after he was dead.

Etc Etc (I have made 1,515 edits)

Desire to remain anonymous. Change of Wikipedia User name.

What is this about? Doesn’t Wikipedia prefer us to remain anonymous so that entries and corrections are judged on the merits of the content and the authenticity of the sources? Do you want me to come out and declare my name on a public Notice Board? What for?

Corporate entities

What corporate entities? I am a retired 86 year old man, living in a 2 bedroom apartment on the old age pension. What nonsense. I support organisations which do good for the community. Always have.

Self published sources

Over the years the publishers of my books have been Angus and Robertson, Zouch, Lothian, Dove, Spectrum and my two best selling books by Hachette Livre - all established respected independent publishers. Two of my books on different subjects are considered authoritative, well researched and praised by all reviewers.

You approached me in a neutral manner??

Your contact with me, like your entry above, from the beginning, has been hostile and intemperate. With such an attitude I’m not able to discuss the matter of my edits with you. You made judgments about my edits without reading the content or checking the references.

You are not suitable to be a Wikipedia policeman.

To the person in charge

I ask whoever is in charge of this Noticeboard to appoint a suitable person to discuss with me the edits and contributions which ITBF has so arrogantly deleted. I can honestly say there is no COI. I can further honestly say that I have never written an article or made an edit (1,515 edits) which I did not believe was a genuine contribution to knowledge, was accurate and authentically sourced. I am particularly proud of the contribution I have made to Wikipedia. Gladiator-Citizen (talk) 00:53, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Francesca Romana D'Antuono

• Heideneii (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Francesca Romana D'Antuono (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Volt Spain (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Volt Slovakia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Volt Austria (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Lucia Kleštincová (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Volt Luxembourg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

(and the list goes on, see user's further edit history: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Heideneii)

User Heideneii have been creating and heavily editing pages on various EU "Volt" related entities (individual member states parties) and persons (politicians).

I have contacted them on their talk page regarding this and they deny any COI. However, based on their edits, where they are a creator or heavy editor of those Volt related party and politician pages, I still suspect COI.

In their latest response they agreed they "are interested in the movement".

I welcome checks and opinions of other users. dusoft (talk) 09:13, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

"they" ist just me, one person. As I Said before, I'm interested in the movement and follow them actively. But I'm not part of the movement or connected in any form to it. English wikipedia is not my main focus at wikipedia either. However, I have noticed that volt as an international movement has hardly been covered there so far, which is why I have started to add articles there.

According to my understanding of the rules on COI, there is no such conflict.

A few days ago, Dusoft left a text on the topic of COI on my discussion page and asked me to explain one for myself, even though, as I understand it, there is no such thing and adding references to COI to the articles I contributed to without even attempting to contact me in advance.. As I said, I am in no way associated with the movement or any of the national parties, other than I actively follow them on Twitter because I find the idea of ​​a pan-European idea interesting.

I have also carefully documented all of my edits with sources so that they can be verified by everyone.

So I was a bit surprised by the accusation, but I'm happy to be corrected if I misunderstand the rules of COI and cordially invite everyone to check my edits for errors. Heideneii (talk) 10:53, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

You have created or heavily edited all Volt [countryname] pages, not just the ones mentioned above. Moreover, you have created multitude of pages of individual politicians from these parties, we are talking tens of these pages. Somehow your arguments of just being "interested in the movement" don't hold here. dusoft (talk) 20:09, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

as i said before, my main focus when editing wikipedia is not on the english wiki, but mainly on completing and translating missing articles from the english wiki. You are welcome to believe what you want, but that doesn't change the fact that I am in no way connected to the movement beyond an interest. i don't know about you, but when i'm interested in a topic i read and work a lot on it. for me it makes sense to add it to wikipedia if i know enough about a subject to be confident about it and already have the necessary sources from my research.

But yes, it is true that many edits in the English wiki on volt go back to me, unfortunately, that is welcome to change, because wiki lives from counterchecks that nobody writes something wrong, even if I have always proven everything I have written with sources. Heideneii (talk) 08:50, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

This is a pretty weak WP:COI accusation, would advise you to just clean up any WP:PROMO you see on the articles and if things get any worse, come back. Allan Nonymous (talk) 17:37, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

what about all the articles that he flagged with the indication that there might be a coi, without substantiating this in any way? It would be nice if someone could check their content for correctness and not leave it like this forever. Heideneii (talk) 17:38, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Romero Britto

• 12.186.95.34 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Romero Britto (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Unsure if I'm doing this report right since I'm not familiar with the behind the scenes of Wikipedia, but I believe I've found a conflict of interest where the artist Romero Britto is editing his own Wikipedia page. This user has only ever edited Britto's page, generally to create a more positive view of him (removing references to being friendly with a right wing politician and explaining in the edit page that Britto is politically neutral, adding an article where Britto defends himself against allegations of being abusive to restaurant staff). When you click on the Geolocate links on the userpage ([8], [9]), the IP address is based in Miami, where Britto lives, and it lists the ISP/Organization as "Britto". Maybe there's an ISP called Britto that I've never heard of, but I feel like this is enough to raise a few eyebrows. Soflata (talk) 01:23, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

At best, this is a WP:SPA give e'm a good ol' last WP:COI warning, and if that doesn't work, haul them off to WP:ANI. Allan Nonymous (talk) 17:39, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Waqar Zaka

• Waqar Zaka (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Mehran133 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Fylindfotberserk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Aanuarif (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Saqib (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Just found a cryptocurrency enthusiast article of Waqar Zaka. It looks promotional, and looks being updated by paid editors and being sued by some paid editors. Even after being two time AFD they saved it. Looks like this cryptocurrency enthusiast got another Article, and this one advertise him in different way. (This)

I only found this source reliable, but the content is just a short chit-chat interview. Other than that, not much was found. This seems old page which encourages COI culture. Please check. Lkomdis (talk) 04:22, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

I'd love to hop into this discussion just as soon as the OP decide to follow protocol and drop me a little notification on my tp. Can't wait. --—Saqib (talk I contribs) 21:38, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

I've made my stance clear here, so I won't repeat it elsewhere. But if anyone has questions, fire away! —Saqib (talk I contribs) 10:07, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

@Saqib I will suggest you, please don't hurry for your desired result, let it be reviewed by others.

Hey, @MER-C, @Diannaa can you have a look, something very complex (fishy) going on here! , as you are more experience with such cases, any comment will be appreciated. Lkomdis (talk) 11:19, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Oh, by all means, feel free to ping anyone you want. After all, even you know I'm CLEAN. BTW, it wouldn't surprise me if you and Aanuarif (talk · contribs) are part of the same UPE group. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 11:32, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Of course! I won't be surprised to find out if you were refused to be paid by the subject. @MER-C @Diannaa Please have a look at his collective behavior in general. All his "Clean" and "Reliable" editing is just to remove the articles that I have created for no reason and proofs whatsoever. Speaks volumes of his agenda and intentions. Aanuarif (talk) 11:36, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Looks like I've got some fans on WP finally. Let me buckle up because it's going to be a wild ride! —Saqib (talk I contribs) 11:45, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

No, Love!

You seem to be so obsessed with my contributions. Aanuarif (talk) 11:48, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

OP blocked. S0091 (talk) 17:38, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Paid editor edit warring and using sockpuppet at Johnson University

• Johnson University (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Etittle1978 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 12.90.237.218 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Based on their replies to my simple and straight forward question asking if they are connected with Johnson University, it's clear that Etittle1978 is indeed closely connected with the institution. Indeed, they directly said that they are "higjly [sic] involved both financially and work with the University [sic]." It now appears that they have logged out to continue editing the article in ways that are blatantly promotional. One of their edit summaries even says that they are "a person authorized to make these changes on behalf of Johnson University."

I strongly recommend that they be blocked until they (a) stop editing this article with which they have a close, financial connection, (b) stop edit-warring to add promotional, POV material to the article, (c) stop using multiple accounts, and (d) acknowledge our COI policies and practices. ElKevbo (talk) 02:13, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Edit warring at Apostolic Christian Church

2600:1008:b05e:5e5c:34ea:3aeb:5dfb:dac8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (and similar IPs)

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

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

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

2600:1007:b01e:62a6:7c0d:a50:39c9:1227 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

2600:1007:b01e:62a6:9cd5:dc9a:c426:6bb5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Note that some IPs listed may belong to a singular user. There was also extensive reverting by other IPs on other sections of the article, but they are not listed here.

Hi, I was told to post this notice here, so here we are. I recently across a lengthy edit war at Apostolic Christian Church involving multiple IPs and a registered account recently, but didn’t know where to post it. Apparently there’s a COI of some kind or something? Hopefully this is the right page. I’m not entirely sure what to think of the situation. -Shift674-🌀 ^contribs 01:57, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

I've just reverted the tag someone added as the talk page isn't proof of COI editing, especially when it's all very old. The edit war might just be a content dispute - who do you think is editing on behalf of the organisation? Secretlondon (talk) 05:20, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Personally, I wasn't sure if this was a COI or not. I was just told it was by another editor, and kinda went with it. Apologies for that. -Shift674-🌀 ^contribs 00:28, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Someone keeps revising the information regarding our new Hymnal. Some people do not like the fact that the Denomination has decided to revise our hymn selection. I am seeing multiple IP addresses adding the line "and others due to the contemporary style music and biblical inaccuracy of some of the songs are not using it at all." This is a matter of personal opinion, and could easily be said of any hymnal. It does not add anything positive to the article. JoelSinn (talk) 16:48, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Maha Ali Kazmi

• Maha Ali Kazmi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Fatam50 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

@Fatam50 keeps taking down maintenance tags from a BLP that looks overly PROMO. I've asked them on their user tp to stop removing the tags, but they're not listening. I haven't removed anything from the BLP yet or nominated it for deletion—just added tags. But the creator is getting defensive, which makes me think there might be some COI going on. I might just take it to AfD though, because I don't see it meeting WP:N. Even though it looks legit with all those RS citations, but its not quite up to snuff. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 10:39, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

User:Tanhasahu

• Robert Soto (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Draft:Maniv Mobility (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Draft:Ross Andrew Paquette (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Tanhasahu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

It seems Tanhasahu may have a conflict of interest, but they denied it when asked to disclose. They registered in February 2024 and started with minor random edits before taking over Robert Soto, where Lifeiswhatnow (talk · contribs) was active before being blocked for undisclosed paid editing. Notably, Tanhasahu registered just a few hours after Lifeiswhatnow was blocked, so it wouldn't be surprising if they were the same person. Tanhasahu also moved Draft:Maniv Mobility a couple of weeks after it was declined and subsequently created Ross Andrew Paquette, a non-notable Canadian businessman. Given their creation of three articles about villages in Rajasthan and their username, it suggests they are from India. It's unusual for someone to write articles about subjects thousands of miles away, particularly when those subjects are not widely known, which indicates they may have been hired. Additionally, they created Julian Jewel Jeyaraj on es-wiki (now deleted), a page previously created by user Jhummu, a blocked undisclosed paid editor and a sock of user Vivek.k.Verma. I also found this SPI filed by user DarmaniLink. GSS ^💬 13:43, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Marc Gafni

• Marc Gafni (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Netanya9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

It seems pretty clear to me from this editor's behavior and the infomation on their user page that they are somehow affiliated with the subject or the subject's organization. They seem to be a single purpose editor who edited a few other articles for a brief period after creating their account, but now only edit the one article. Skyerise (talk) 00:01, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Also note that the above editor is adding self-published (CreateSpace) books to the subject's publications. Skyerise (talk) 00:13, 14 May 2024 (UTC)