Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The unearthing of massive UPE operation

Note: moved from WP:ANI. Levivich 16:21, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Agency Name: RankHawn HQ Location: Bangalore, India Official Website: https://rankhawn.com/

Claims to be Wikipedia Page Creator at their Website - https://rankhawn.com/wikipedia-page-creation-service/

Claims to be Wikipedia Page Creator at third-party sites such as directories - [Zoompo https://www.zoompo.com/rankhawn/], [SartUs https://www.startus.cc/company/rankhawn], [ExportersIndia https://www.exportersindia.com/rankhawn/].


Now, let's focus on their client list (as mentioned on their Website - https://rankhawn.com/our-clients/);

Current Status: The page is LIVE!!
User:Lapablo is a sockpuppet of User:Ukpong1
The page moved back to draft multiple times; these two IDs moved it back to the main article namespace; User:DrJNU and User:Sonofstar.
Current status: The page is LIVE!!
  • Tata 1mg - Page created by another blocked ID User:Myconcern. The page was nominated for an AfD on May 24, 2021, but it attracted a bunch of meatpuppets (as User:MER-C has rightly identified it), out of which only one survived User:Sonofstar and did pretty well to influence the outcome.
Current status: The page is LIVE!!
Current status: The page is finally in a draft, thanks to Praxidicae
Current status: The page is finally in a draft, thanks to Praxidicae
Also, note, that it is because of this draftification, I was dragged to ANI for the third time by this gang of UPEs.
  • smallcase - Created by an SPA. But page was pushed back to draft by an another UPE, User:Germankitty (who happens to be blocked) and again moved it back to mainspace by User:Alookaparatha (also blocked) and edited further by User:GA99(also blocked) and User:User:Behind the moors.
Current status: The page is currently going through AfD, thanks to HighKing
  • Tejas Networks - Page created by a low-level ID - User:Diamondchandelier. Genuinely passed AfC, maybe because of WP:LISTED. But, it was further edited by User:Alookaparatha
Current status: The page is LIVE!
Current status: The page is LIVE!
Current status: The page is LIVE!

I started this investigation on my end after facing the third ANI case , which was launched against me by the same group of UPEs. The way they tried to influence the ANI discussion by seeding doubts (against me) in the minds of other participants made me more determined to seek them outside Wikipedia. That determination led me to gather more information about paid Wikipedia services providers (in India and South Asia), and gradually I started updating the WP:PAIDLIST. However, I was not so hopeful in the beginning. But, giving up is not an option when your reputation is attacked. Kindly note that I intentionally added the screenshots of RankHawn's webpages to Wikimedia Commons. We should have some proof if they try to modify/update their website to hide the trail. So let's end this once and for all. - Hatchens ( talk) 15:01, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

  • Two issues with this report 1) Why is this here instead of WP:COIN? This seems more suited to that noticeboard. 2) Your diffs don't show any conflicts of interest. For example, your proof for your first bullet is just the dif where the draft was moved to the main space. How do I know, only by looking at that dif, that there is a problem? Same for many of the others. You've made a lot of serious accusations here, but you're light on evidence and on possible solution. And, as I said, this is the wrong venue. -- Jayron 32 15:29, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
    Jayron32, I too feel this is the wrong venue. But, have you considered looking at the external links like this which mentions the names of companies that are clients of RankHawn. Ofcourse, this indicates that the Wikipedia articles of any of these are UPE cases, imho ─ The Aafī on Mobile (talk) 15:40, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
    This should be moved to WP:COIN for further comments. I hope some admin takes care of it. @ MER-C:, your opinions on this, please? ─ The Aafī on Mobile (talk) 15:42, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
    If that's the case, then the paid editing is hardly undeclared, n'est ce pas? I mean, if they are literally publicly declaring this, it's not UPE, is it? This hardly merits the sort of moral panic-type post above, and yes WP:COIN is the correct venue. -- Jayron 32 15:45, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
    Jayron32, declaration on some other website is not sufficient under either the Foundation's terms of use or enwiki's local policy implementing the terms. Cabayi ( talk) 15:56, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
    Fair enough. This is still not WP:COIN. -- Jayron 32 15:59, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Please take this to WP:COIN. -- Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 16:09, 20 May 2022 (UTC)


Nothing to add except that I have no affiliations with this rankhawn or whatever it is called. This is exactly why I gave up my AFC rights. You do a ton of AFC and then get dragged in stuff like this. Hatchens don't have a lot of ground honestly after the deletion of Koenig Institute and Prasun Chatterjee that they accepted/NPP, and defended. Their affiliations with Nikhil Kamath are still unanswered. I also see them requesting Smallcase to be redirected to Zerodha (Nikhil Kamath's company).

Nomadicghumakkad ( talk) 16:16, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

  • Manyavar was created, quarantined, and patrolled all by blocked spammers ( Juggyevil, MickyShy and Aloolkaparatha). OkCredit is also suspicious, having been patrolled by the same spammer as Manyavar. MER-C 17:10, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
    there is a need of policy or guideline that covers this underground UPE. There are plethora of such websites [rings] operating on the Wikipedia, and if I'm not wrong a plenty of editors associated would be those in good-standing over here. This "underground ring" has understood how Wikipedia works and that's how they do their business. This needs more than a block or a sanction. ─ The Aafī on Mobile (talk) 18:03, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
  • So, we have two completely different issues here. The first is how do we deal with UPE accounts, and the second, mostly unrelated matter, is how do we deal with the articles that have been created this way. The first seems easy. Blocking the accounts seems perfectly reasonable, we have plenty of policy backing to do so, WP:NOTHERE is sufficient. The second is dealing with the articles. That's also easy. We read the article and pretend it wasn't created inappropriately. We just erase that idea from our minds. Then we assess it against the same standards we would any article, take the ones that don't belong at Wikipedia to AFD, edit the other ones to clean up any tone/NPOV issues, and then go back to the rest of our lives. UPE is a problem, but it's a problem dealt with using the mechanisms we use for dealing with any problems. We block/ban any users who violate standards, and we use normal editing processes to deal with their mess, being sure not to cut off our own nose just to spite our faces. -- Jayron 32 18:33, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
  • I am grateful to Jayron32 for their very cear distinction between the UPE editor (block them to hell and back - I paraphrase) and the article (treat it like any other article), and agree wholeheartedly with the element regarding the UPE editors
I have sympathy with their view on articles. However I also do not wish to reward UPE. I believe we should take the approach that clear UPE created articles without edits by other parties (substantive edits, not cosmetic edits) should be treated in the same way as we treat articles created by blocked users evading their block. Delete and consider salting if saltig be justified. Those that have received substantive edits by non UPE editors should be held up against our policies WP:N and WP:V, and face deletion or retention on that basis, by an appropriate deletion mechanism, inclising speedy deletion for egregious cases.
I am also grateful to Hatchens for brigning their thoughts first to ANI and then, more properly (albeit by consensus at ANI), to here. 🇺🇦  FiddleTimtrent  FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 18:45, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
  • I am not entirely clear on what actions are being requested here and how our existing policies and practices are inadequate. I do think that it would be really helpful if the foundation could offer more active, direct support in combatting UPE, especially in cases where there are many people or a large organization(s) involved that exceeds the capabilities of a volunteer editor. This does seem like an area where some paid staff could really help us volunteers. ElKevbo ( talk) 19:55, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Again thanks to Hatchens for bringing this to the community's attention. This practice is likely more widespread that we acknowledge and should be dealt with swiftly whenever discovered. I also agree 100% that UPE editors should not be rewarded in any way, shape or form. Any articles in which they have been substantially involved should be deleted because to leave those articles in place means that the UPE delivered a "satisfied" customer. It might sound overly-harsh, but if their "customers" end up denied the coverage promised by the UPE editors it will discourage future participants. HighKing ++ 20:19, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
  • What if we were to, say, append a COI template that also applies NOINDEX? We keep the page so that it can be worked on (if it's otherwise acceptable) and they're denied the Google rankings they're looking for. — Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 20:45, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Is it though? A "customer" would still be able to see *their* paid-for space on Wikipedia, UPE would still get paid. COI template might even encourage some UPE's (see, we can break the rules and *still* get your page live). Not seeing a workable disincentive here. HighKing ++ 20:51, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
  • The entire reason they want the article is to exploit most search engines' favouring of Wikipedia, and thru that drive traffic to their web pages from the links in article. This is not an instance where NOFOLLOW would help since the goal is to have a publicly-searchable Wikipedia article that tops search engine rankings. — Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 21:28, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
By default, yes, those templates should apply NOINDEX. But not as a solution to UPE. HighKing ++ 20:52, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
I second HK. This is not any solution to the UPE problems. No-indexing ≠ not having a Wikipedia article. All those people or companies want a Wikipedia article, and don't care about its Google indexing, perhaps for some reasons; who cares with the "within Wikipedia known stuff"? This needs a stricter stick. ─ The Aafī on Mobile (talk) 21:02, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
The only other thing they would want a Wikipedia article for is social media verification, from experience. Most such websites accept a Wikipedia article, as long as it's properly referenced and written, for verification. The issue is that most of these people either assume the Wikipedia article is the easiest option (ignoring the "properly referenced and written" part) or ignore far easier requirements that would make a Wikipedia article for the purpose redundant (for example, Twitter also allows one to submit multiple news articles for verification, a requirement which at best dovetails with and at worst makes unnecessary a Wikipedia article).
People aren't seeking a Wikipedia article just to have a Wikipedia article. All the WP:BLPREQDEL we get proves that much. They have a goal in mind that the Wikipedia article is a means toward. — Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 21:34, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
I think we can comfortably presume that people who are paying to have their company added to Wikipedia don't have a company that would end up in Wikipedia through the course of normal volunteer editing. At the very least, they should automatically be moved to draft to be vetted, and not at the top of the pile of drafts, either. BD2412 T 21:44, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
I agree with this. Draftifying all of them gets them off main namespace and removes them from robots indexing while also putting them in the AfC queue so an un-involved editor can examine it. The concern is how many UPE'ers are already inside AfC. Chris Troutman ( talk) 21:47, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
Both AfC and NPR are filled with the UPE'ers. ─ The Aafī on Mobile (talk) 21:56, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
Just a note that, in a recent RFC (on Village Pump I guess), WP:DRAFTIFY has a new 2d clause not allowing articles older than 90 days (and recent creation by inexperienced editor) for draftification - except thru AFD. That also has the 5a and 5b that deal with WP:COIEDIT — DaxServer ( t · m · c) 11:51, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
Not sure how 45 support and 46 oppose somehow became a 90 day draftification limit. In my opinion, this is another frustrating example of the wider community passing edicts that make the job of new page patrollers harder, without taking into account the complexity of the existing NPP workflow and the size of the NPP queue. – Novem Linguae ( talk) 20:20, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
At the very least, they should automatically be moved to draft to be vetted, and not at the top of the pile of drafts, either. The guideline WP:COI is kind of weak. It only says that COI/UPE should use the AFC process. This is sometimes circumvented by bad actors with moves back to mainspace or copy/paste moves. – Novem Linguae ( talk) 20:22, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
Note: NOINDEX only works in mainspace for 90 days. After that, MediaWiki ignores it and allows search engine indexing. – Novem Linguae ( talk) 19:53, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Seems like the fact that this was initially posted to ANI has muddied the waters a bit, but I don't see why we shouldn't deal with this like we always deal with UPE: block the accounts and tag the articles with {{ UPE}} until someone can check whether they need to be cleaned up or deleted. Moving to draft is just kicking the can down the road. –  Joe ( talk) 00:33, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
    Since this is multi-accounts UPE operation, can the accounts in question be checked for potential socks and sleeper accounts? – robertsky ( talk) 01:45, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Adding one more client of RankHawn;

Created by; User:Boyofjawad (blocked)
Included in RankHawn Client List: YES
ID's involved; User:GA99 (blocked) and User:Sonofstar
Current Status: The page is LIVE! - Hatchens ( talk) 04:00, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
robertsky; Aren't we taking this too much easy? How would one justify the usage of a CU because all the accounts may not necessarily be used by a single person, and there would necessarily be no behavioural similarities. The big UPE rings are aware of the "within Wikipedia" intricacies. An SPI clerk won't approve for a CU until they get on-wiki diffs that indicate any sort of similarities, and perhaps same sort of behaviour is needed under DUCK. This is much beyond. ─ The Aafī on Mobile (talk) 04:22, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
Hence the phrasing as a question. Thanks for the response, it is what I wanted to know. My thought was that these people may slip up despite knowing the intricacies of the norms on Wikipedia, and they may have accounts in good standing just waiting to be activated for their UPE operation. But agree on the current usage/limits on CU. May have to do some behavioral analysis to check for potential relations then. – robertsky ( talk) 09:54, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
I feel behaviour-check is difficult given the fact how these types of UPE rings work. They've their boys in the AfC and NPP. I was reading somewhere on the website that Hatchens reported above, that, they are all over the Wikipedia, and in fact good-standing in a nice way. Can't AfC/NPP reviewers of any of the articles that come from such rings be held accountable? This is something that has nothing to do with SPI's. What about those who hugely influence the AfD discussions? So much to do. ─ The Aafī on Mobile (talk) 10:08, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
@ TheAafi: Don't believe everything you read... we know that UPE outfits frequently lie about their standing on-wiki to dupe people into giving them money. There have been cases of UPErs/sockpuppets getting new page patrol rights (the criteria aren't particularly high), but I don't think it's a widespread problem. Most are not particularly savvy and get themselves blocked long before they even reach extended confirmed. But if you have specific accounts you are concerned about that aren't already blocked, by all means let's look at them. –  Joe ( talk) 10:36, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
UPE is in itself a good reason to suspect sockpoppetry and run a check. Many (most?) of the accounts above are already checkuser blocked. If there are any with more recent edits I can check for more socks but most seem to be stale by now. –  Joe ( talk) 10:31, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
Indeed yes. UPE and socking go together very well, if combined. There is a financial incentive, and their incomes, after all! Remember Orangemoody? We even have a mainspace on it - Orangemoody editing of Wikipedia — DaxServer ( t · m · c) 11:57, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Adding one more suspected client of RankHawn

Created by User:KNivedat (the same low-level ID has created Draft:PharmEasy, a client of RankHawn)
Included in RankHawn Client List: NO
ID's involved in editing further; User:Behind_the_mooor (blocked)
Today, there was an attempt to create a page for its founder via AfC route - Draft:Kunal Shah. An SPA was used; User:Pogochamp.
Current Status: The page is LIVE! - Hatchens ( talk) 15:52, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Umakant Bhalerao's possible socks

@ Joe Roe: I found some for a review. For the background, I wrote this report and my suspicions were right. This UPE ring operates a large number of accounts. My quest to discover more lead to another NPR right holder, Umakant Bhalerao ( talk · contribs). Their pattern is pretty much similar to DMySon (mostly reviews politician's articles, Uttar Pardesh geography, in between they review their own client's articles) and I won't be surprised if a usercheck confirms that. In any case, following accounts are most likely operated by them:

I think this is enough to file a SPI against these accounts (perhaps on GermanKity) and we need some sort of sysop action against Umakant Bhalerao (they've done enough damage already). Courtesy ping to @ MER-C:. I am notifying Umakant Bhalerao to join this discussion. Thanks. 117.215.247.207 ( talk) 18:20, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

I agree Wikibablu, Michael goms, Anthony Masc, Aaliyahshaikh01, and Pjjkn are all suspicious. MER-C 18:30, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
@ MER-C: the IDs are so smart that none of them have any inter-linking history popping at Editor Interaction Tool. If all these IDs turns out to be linked with GermanKity (I don't know how), then it will establish indirect link with MickyShy; which will eventually leads us back to RankHawn. Kindly note, there is also no inter-linking history between Germankity and MickyShy but, still the latter got blocked because being former's sockpuppet. As AafiOnMobile quoted above - "This is much beyond". - Hatchens ( talk) 06:07, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Dear IP, you are mistaken. I do not have a connection with any of the accounts you've mentioned above. Nor do I know GermanKity. You're more than welcome to file an SPI request. And secondly, this list is very short, I've marked many more articles as reviewed within minutes of their creation that doesn't mean those accounts belong to me.-- Umakant Bhalerao ( talk) 20:01, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

  • @ Hatchens: What is your take on Razorpay ( logs, draft logs) in which Umakant Bhalerao was involved (they draftified stating UPE and PROMO concerns). I don't see Razorpay on RankHawn website. Is there a connection or is this completely independent of this report? — DaxServer ( t · m · c) 09:35, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
    @ DaxServer First of all, I was surprised to hear Umakant Bhalerao's name come up in this discussion thread and equally surprised to find him performing controversial reviews of some articles (as mentioned above by the IP). However, I have worked with them, interacted with them, and discovered their reasoning to be explicit and exemplary. In fact, they are one of my go-to editors when I need a second opinion or recommend somebody for a review. And, when it comes to Razorpay, based on the logs, draft logs, they have shown us the exact level of knowledge and integrity as our community demands. Therefore, I hope they should come clean about their act. It's about trust. That's the only thing we can share with our fellow editors.
    Now, coming to the second question (and the important one), if you ask me how to connect with Razorpay with RankHawn; without the former getting mentioned on the latter's website? It's simple... by studying the edit history of the recently created Draft:Razorpay, which was created by Aviationhub on May 22, 2022 (i.e., today) and it's the same ID which did two mid-size edits on Draft:Bigbasket (RankHawn client) on May 16, 2022. They are also involved in editing other RankHawn client pages such as; Cred (company), and Tata 1mg (in the past two months). So it does establish a connection. And, we should not be surprised that Razorpay is RankHawn's new client because, in the past, their pages have been draftified n-number of times, and one of their reviewers DarjeelingTea and page movers JohnHGood41 are also blocked. But, I wonder about the audacity of this UPE gang to attempt a new page (for Razorpay) with an ID that can be duly linked back to this ongoing COIN investigation. It seems to be unprecedented and weird! - Hatchens ( talk) 11:27, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
    @ DaxServer we have just discovered the tip of the iceberg. And, we should be prepared for more such unwanted discoveries (like Razorpay). I would request you and others, please expand this investigation from your end, collate your discoveries over this thread. Collectively, we should take this as an opportunity to learn and decide the future course of action against these elements. - Hatchens ( talk) 11:39, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
    Thanks for your assessment! Looking at the contributions of Aviationhub ( talk · contribs), they are overwhelmingly within Indian politics. Diverging into companies is fairly recent (since February 2022) and only in the last ~100 edits out of ~930 total edits. Tho there might be an edit here and there in the past, they are pass and go and nothing major. If they are involved in WP:UPE, they must declare it. I'll leave an UPE declaration notice on their talk page. — DaxServer ( t · m · c) 12:01, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
    Hey guys Aviation Hub here
    I am just an average Indian student who has lots of free time and likes to edit it during the time. I dont get paid any sorts or what plus the draft i created and everything else were not done by me. They used to exist before in the razorpay page which has now been removed i just added it because i thought they were right if they arent mistaken me i am apoliogising and will never do that again and instead take it as a learning opportunity instead. I only write about startups fundraising and financial i only did this cause i thought the previous article was right I am sorry once again. I have no idea what is UPE and anything else too or what on earth a RankHawn is. Aviationhub ( talk) 16:15, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
    @ Aviationhub: Can I ask you why you working on the Draft:Bigbasket article and specifically put the products list back in (the exact same content) that I removed for being straight up promotional. That article has been in-out of draft numerous and deleted twice at Afd with a clear consensus to delete. Currently you look like a UPE. scope_creep Talk 17:35, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

What happens now?

The allegations against Hatchens and their subsequent block notwithstanding, a great deal of potential evidence has been presented about a serious set of allegations. Is the moving of this forward something that COIN handles, or does this move into areas that ordinary editors, perhaps ordinary admins, are not privileged to see?

That it withers on the vine does not seem to me to be an option. I see any discussion about Hatchens as a connected but separate topic. Those issues can be pursued separately.

If even part of the evidence presented above is true, and comments by very experienced editors such as MER-C seem to suggest a great deal of truth, it woudl be disappointimg if action just, well, stopped. 🇺🇦  FiddleTimtrent  FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 08:13, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes, it would be a real shame if this went nowhere. Perhaps the next step is to get some Checkuser evidence via an SPI? Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 10:54, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
I blocked Wikibablu. MER-C 10:38, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
A SPI has been filed by a "new" user: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/GermanKity. MER-C 15:05, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
@ MER-C I am unsure whether to be concerned about the newness of the filing editor. Any inappropriate conduct im that regard will all come out in due course. I am, however pleased that I can see "something" taking place, likely spurred on by this report.
I choose to imagine that wheels are turning behind the scenes for the most part, and hope my imagination is correct. 🇺🇦  FiddleTimtrent  FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 21:28, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

The SPI above has been closed due to lack of focus. MER-C 16:56, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Very suspicious account here they seemed to get on well with German Kitty and were obsessed with gaining draft review rights at some point. user:Suryabeej 2A01:4C8:8AA:CF87:884D:CB50:32AF:331C ( talk) 21:53, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Just an observation, but there's a bunch of editors that appear to have disappeared and stopped editing from the areas I mostly edit (NCORP-related AfDs). I can't help but think the UPE sock farm might have been a lot bigger than we suspected initially. Anyone else notice the same? HighKing ++ 20:51, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
Yes. I’ve noticed the exact same thing. 2A01:4C8:1C00:3884:A196:1239:C503:533 ( talk) 22:08, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
Please send me a list (don't post here, we don't want to notify). MER-C 06:28, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Oasis Christian Academy

Apparently an employee of the school. Creation and ownership of article, with an interest in promotional content. Most recent account hasn't responded to COI questions, and I'm assuming the original account is dormant. 2601:188:180:B8E0:0:0:0:4FAD ( talk) 15:02, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

My COI articles

Hello dear Enwiki users. In January I was disclosed my connections in trwiki, in the first five articles, I have COI as they are my family members. Also, I know FWBR's creator. I felt the need to write it again here as I want other editors to look at it. Kind regards, Kadı Message 14:59, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

@ Kadı: Thank you, we appreciate your disclosures. Just as an aside, I noticed on your userpage that you have separate {{ UserboxCOI}} templates for each article. You can actually put these all together into one, like so:
{{UserboxCOI|1=Kamil Tolon|2=Şefik Kamil Efes|3=Ercan Aktuna|4=Nilgün Efes|5=SS Frederica (1890)|6=Fancy Women Bike Ride}}
-- Drm310 🍁 ( talk) 19:47, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Oracle Intelligent Advisor

I believe this user has a conflict of interest that is undeclared based on the user's name and that they have only edited this article since the account's creation earlier today . SamWilson989 ( talk) 00:16, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Hello. My account was not created on 2 June 2022 (I've been active since June 2021 as you can see in the history of the account) and I've been editing this page for well over a year now. It was completely out of date and did not reflect the product. I do not work for Oracle Corporation (the company that sells the product), nor do I represent them in any way. Intelligentadvisoritconsulting ( talk) 00:22, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
undo"block" 2600:1700:B850:4EA0:9C88:F03D:DE3:430 ( talk) 20:11, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
My edits (which you can view in the history of course) remove dead links, update links, correct errors and out-of-date product names, add information that was missing about versions of the product that were introduced since the last edit and other basic housekeeping since nobody else was editing the page. Intelligentadvisoritconsulting ( talk) 00:32, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for commenting. I realise now I should have asked you on your talk page first. I was too rash. I apologise. Happy to rescind this note to the admins, but I assume an admin needs to close this discussion first. SamWilson989 ( talk) 00:34, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
Reported the user name to WP:UAA. It seems "Intelligentadvisoritconsulting" is from [3], so promo account. scope_creep Talk 20:40, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Question about whether being a former member of a religion counts as a COI

Uh... I'm the subject of the discussion so I think I don't have to use {{ coin-notice}}. I had a question because I made some edits earlier, mostly fixing typos and adding commas but two in regards to content [4] [5]. It occurred to me after the fact that this might violate the spirit of WP:COI. Anyways, I came here to seek clarification. I reread COI and it doesn't really specifically mention a situation like mine. At least I don't think so? The language at WP:EXTERNALREL is vague enough and includes religion as a potential COI, so I'm seeking clarification. I got the impression that was more about advocacy, but biases aren't nessecarily positive. I will say that even though I don't agree with my former religious beliefs (I like being able to vote and donate blood and supporting the rights of LGBT+ people), I don't feel any particular hatred for members of the religion. I think religious freedom is important. But if my edits are considered a conflict of interest, should I just revert myself and stay away from the topic of Jehovah's Witnesses in general? If people here think I should do so, I'll do so voluntarily. Clovermoss (talk) 12:52, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

I don't think this is a COI issue so much as a personal issue for you as to if you think you can edit with a neutral point of view and set your views aside. I don't think merely having been an adherent to a religion gives one a COI, unless you were a clergyperson or had some involvement in the religion itself. If you would like others to act as a check on you to make sure you are setting your views aside enough, you could make edit requests. 331dot ( talk) 13:01, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
@ 331dot: I'm a woman, so no. I wasn't ever part of what could be considered a clergy-person because that's impossible. Everyone is involved in the religion to some extent though, I was raised going door-do-door because that's a vital aspect of the religious beliefs. The main reason I might have a COI is the whole obligatory shunning everyone who leaves thing.
Regardless, I wouldn't mind having a second set of eyes from others on my edits. Edit requests to existing articles seem like a good idea. What about if I wanted to try writing an article about Lamb v. Benoit? It's notable because it's a case that was heard by the Supreme Court of Canada, but I get why I maybe shouldn't directly create it in mainspace, if at all. I usually draft articles first so I could submit it through AfC instead of moving it directly to mainspace. Clovermoss (talk) 13:12, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
This article about Jehovah's Witnesses congregational discipline might be useful for background to understand what I meant in the previous comment about what I just said in regards to the "obligatory shunning everyone who leaves thing". In regards to the redlinked article, I feel like I could write about that neutrally, but maybe it's best if I avoid it. I was giving it more as a hypothetical example of how I should approach a certain situation. If that's not something I should do, I'm fine with making edit requests for existing articles. Clovermoss (talk) 13:55, 5 June 2022 (UTC), edited 13:58, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Being a member of a religion, current or former, is 100% not a COI. The key word is "interest", which in this case means something to gain or lose (like a financial interest, or a political interest), not in the sense of "I'm interested in it." Members of a religion don't have an "interest" (in the gain/loss sense of the word) in the religion just by being members (unless you want to be real cynical and say they have an interest in getting into heaven). If you're being paid by a church, or you're a politician running for office and seeking the endorsement of a church-affiliated group, then you might have an "interest" (in the church, I'd argue, not the entire religion). But a COI isn't borne from a belief for/against something, it's borne from a relationship with something where the relationship gives you a benefit (like getting paid) and that benefit might make you less than objective when it comes to editing.

A separate issue is bias. You may or may not have a bias in favor of or against some organization you were a part of, or a religion, or your favorite movie star, or anything else. If your biases prevent you from editing neutrally, well, then it's best not to edit it. I have no idea if that's the case here, but if you're editing a page that's watchlisted by someone else, presumably they'd let you know if there were problems.

I'd caution against using edit requests as a matter of course merely because you have a prior connection to the subject matter. Edit requests make work for other people and that effort may be better spent elsewhere. You're probably fine to just edit directly. If some edit is particularly controversial or problematic, maybe submit those as edit requests. You could voluntarily submit new articles to AFC if you wanted to get a second set of eyes on it before publishing. But you can always just ask someone to read your work when it's done and see if there are any problems (I'd be happy to volunteer though someone more knowledgeable about the subject matter would probably be better)... this will give you the second set of eyes but be less cumbersome than edit requests or AfC.

You're an experienced editor so I wouldn't worry too much about it; if anything you're probably being overly cautious rather than under cautious, which is part of what makes you a good editor. Levivich 14:01, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment, Levivich. I'd say the thing about bias is likely the best thing to keep in mind. The aspect of edit requests creating work for someone else for edits that are probably fine is something I didn't really think about. I still feel like being cautious for new articles is a good idea. Also, just being cautious in general. Thank you for your offer to be a second set of eyes. Clovermoss (talk) 14:25, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
I did start a draft at Draft:Lamb v. Benoit if anyone wants to take a look. Clovermoss (talk) 18:58, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
COI is designed to address situations where someone has a direct personal interest. For example, if you are the topic of an article or own or work for a company that is a topic of an article, then you have a COI. Individual bias is a separate issue. It is expected that we will put our biases aside when editing articles. TFD ( talk) 19:23, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Ahmad Fawzi

A long-standing suspicion of undeclared COI (the article was written in 2015), based on several red flags:

  • Single-purpose account: the user that created the article has only (with the exception of 4 edits) contributed to this article thoughout its existance.
  • Tone the tone of the article is quite "PR puffery" and reads like a typical UN-format CV.
  • Subject it seems rather strange that a new user decides to start (and end) its Wikipedia experience by creating the page of a rather obscure UN bureaucrat unknown to the general public.
  • Timing: the article was created in October 2015, just 2 months after the person described in the article received quite some negative publicity following the scandal of an unpaid UN intern that was sleeping in a tent and Mr Fawzi held a press conference (shown also in a documentary on the subject: https://vimeo.com/ondemand/callmeintern) where he made questionable remarks about young people working in his office as well as statements on the existence of a UN General Assembly resolution that later turned out to be false.
  • Editing modality: most of the article's content was added as a single, large edit ( [6]), suggesting some pre-written text was provided.
  • Information not publicly available. The sentence on the marriage status, daughters and languages spoken by the subject of the article do not appear to be in public domain, and are in fact not sourced. They are however common on UN official bios, suggesting that the editor was provided access to UN bio notes by internal sources, possibly the subject of the article himself or somebody from his office. A number of sources link up to documents stored on some google drive, including official letters of thanks, which are clearly private documents, not publicly available: another red flag that the editor may have personal connections with the subject of the article.
  • Type of sources: in connection to the above point, the user, in one of its first edits, indicates he has "supporting evidence in PDF files" about the subject of the article, once again pointing to the possibility he may have been emailed documents by the commissioning entity in order to be used to create the article.
  • Uploading of images: the editor, after posting images downloaded from the internet - later removed for copyright infringement - has then uploaded UN copyrighted images not publicly available on the internet, which raised the suspicion that the images had been received by the user from an internal UN source, possibly linked to the person subject of the article. Following the removal of those images too (see here, here and here) the user only recently claimed those images were available in public domain. While only one of the images claimed appears to actually be in public domain, I do recall however this was not the case when these images were nominated for deletion, and a quick search via the Wayback Machine shows there are no archived copies of the images now in public domain pre-dating May 2022 (while it was added by the editor in 2015): see here. Equally suspicious is the fact that - unlike the other photos released on Flickr by the UN Geneva account - only the 2 indicated by the editor have a public domain licence, suggesting a potential link or affiliation between the editor and staff in the UN Geneva account (run by the information service, incidentally the office previously directed by the subject of the article).
  • Possible personal contacts: the editor has voluntarily shared his linkedin profile, which shows he is based in the same city where the subject of the article resides and works for the past few years.
  • Shared concerns: suspicion on potential COI have been expressed by a number of users here and here.

Desyman ( talk) 20:32, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Did you mean Ahmad Fawzi? PRAXIDICAE💕 20:36, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
I have been through the article Ahmad Fawzi and removed content that was fairly resume-like and was not verified by the sources cited. There may be enough left to meet WP:GNG, and there may be more available elsewhere that can be properly sourced, but it certainly read to me like a PR piece. Melcous ( talk) 01:27, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
@ Praxidicae: Oh gosh, so sorry about the misspelling, of corse you're right :) I have corrected it!
Thanks @ Melcous: for the "purge" of non verifiable materials, the fact that private letters linked via google drive were used seems to me yet another red flag that this is a commissioned article. I am not so sure the notability is sufficient for this person (usually we do not have bios of mid-rank public officials not famous for other events), but that's probably for another discussion. In my view there are plenty of pointers here that suggest an undeclared COI/commissioned article.-- Desyman ( talk) 12:21, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Culver City Police Department

IP has been consistently adding unreferenced information to this article since yesterday, and its ISP appears to be the Culver City Police Department. Two warnings have been given on its talk page by other editors, and all of its edits have been reverted. Augusthorsesdroppings10 ( talk) 19:16, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Singapore Art Museum

User's only edits are to that article, and his username looks like the article's. Viewer719 Talk!/ Contribs! 09:03, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

They've been blocked by 331dot. Just a suggestion for Viewer719, if the username is identical (or reasonably close to) the name of a real-life organization that the user is writing about, then they can be reported to WP:UAA. The username policy forbids accounts from representing organizations or groups of people. -- Drm310 🍁 ( talk) 15:00, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Wave Accelerated Ring Pinch Reactor

The subject editor was given a standard conflict of interest notice and responded without addressing the question of conflict of interest. They then bludgeoned the deletion discussion, and are now bludgeoning the DRV. Robert McClenon ( talk) 19:58, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Herman Otten

Non-notable page created by SPA, User:Karemsingh. It seems likely they are connected to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hammad Chaudhry/Archive (blocked UPE) as Sabel Naveen was working on thier sandbox, User:Sabel Naveen/sandbox when they recieved a block. Most of the sources are trivial, so if kept we have to clean-up the promotional edits. User:Oetmon and User:Jason586 edits are also suspicious. User:Oetmon is likely connected as they have edited their Dutch language page [7]. Thank you. 2A02:8108:4CBF:AE80:F875:1E6D:E013:D624 ( talk) 09:40, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

and you are? Note for others, this is also at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2022 June 7. Star Mississippi 17:50, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
Another note for others: Herman Otten (actor) was nominated for deletion once at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Herman Otten (actor), which was closed by Star Mississippi as No Consensus, and with a note that there was the smell of sockpuppetry. It was then nominated for deletion again, this time by an experienced editor, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Herman Otten (actor) (2nd nomination). This may be a case of good hand, bad hand, or a slow-motion gunfight between sock farms. Wikipedia does not permit us to kill them all and let Jimbo Wales sort them out. Robert McClenon ( talk) 04:53, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Dilara Fındıkoğlu

Palaangelino is a Turkish Wikipedia user, and one year ago he was banned for his undisclosed paid contributions. 3 days ago I nominated Dilara Fındıkoğlu for deletion and he commented on the AfD. He continues hiding his connections etc. Also, he attacked to me on the AfD. I request sysops to get involved in the incident. Regards, Kadı Message 05:07, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

[8] PR contributions in WD. Kadı Message 05:10, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
First of all, I'm not a Turkish Wiki contributor cose of you all Turkish community that explains why TR Wiki was closed for years. Secondly, what are my connections? Non-sense complaint. I defend myself and my contributions cose Kadı requested spam deletion for my article for dilara and then all my wikidata items in just 20 mins. I request sending this user back to Wiki TR. Palaangelino ( talk) 07:04, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
Keep trying Kadı, not today ser :) Palaangelino ( talk) 07:06, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
Last warning: Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Kadı Message 08:12, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
Yup, that's awesome you finally linked this here. I know you and so I was waiting for it. Now click the link and check it again, if it's personal attack or not that requesting deletion for every single item and an article of a user in minutes. How did you come, do research and decide all of my contributions are paid/PR/not notable in just minutes? How is that possible? Such personalized actions. Let's just make sense and stop this personal non-sense. Last words: Wikipedia:AVOIDYOU :) Palaangelino ( talk) 10:11, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
I do not know you in real life, so I can not have a personal problem with you. When the items are examined, it can be easily understood that they are created for PR and promotional purposes. Your accusation of sock puppetry and your writing style match those of the advertisers I've encountered. @ Vincent Vega also banned you, remember please. The items are going to be deleted in order to build a valuable online encyclopedia. Before you start contributing here, you need to understand Wikipedia's philosophy. This is my last reply. Kadı Message 10:22, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
You're so funny saying "you don't know me in real life" then ending with "before you start contributing here, you need to understand Wikipedia's philosophy" like you already know me. I know you very well, and I know you know me. You know my issue with TR Wiki that happened a year ago. A huge year and still chasing me. How don't you know me? It feels like whole TR Wiki talks about me. I'm being honest here. It was just TR Wiki issue and we all know how poor TR Wiki is, like how modern-illiterate the community is, needs how much more improvement in general - so Vincent and your other friends didn't tell you that they didn't even listen to me and my reasons - just straight banned me and also my friend with false accusations. Such a shame. These words explain TR Wiki so well: "Your accusation of sock puppetry and your writing style match those of the advertisers I've encountered" like y'all sitting online to just catch PR pokemons all day until you die. Also saying "when the items are examined" like you really examined them. If you examined enough, how it took only couple minutes to request deletion for that many items? You must be a compute bot or something. Please stop this personal non-sense and continue your Turkish PR pokemon catching activity. Have fun with your life. :) Palaangelino ( talk) 10:58, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Well, Kadı might not know you, but I do, and still remember how much of a headache you were back then. The user in question has been indef blocked on trwiki for paid editing. The evidence was found and reviewed by three admins (Courtesy ping Vincent Vega, Uncitoyen, Elmacenderesi), who in the end concluded that there was an obvious violation of the T&C. See the discussion there. I'm not going to comment much on off-wiki evidence I haven't seen myself, but if three experienced admins say something, that stuff is likely to be true. Less than two months after the block, the user proceeds to create this article on enwiki.
I'm going to only judge based on what I have seen myself. The only article created by Palaangelino on enwiki is Dilara Fındıkoğlu, which reads more like a press release in itself rather than a encyclopedia entry: "Since then, [...] are some of the names that have dressed her creations in red carpets and stages."
Most images uploaded by Palaangelino on Wikimedia Commons have "press photo" in their titles. This file depicting AYDEED, the subject of the article that resulted in his trwiki block, is taken from her own website and has OTRS/VRT permission, which means that he was at least in contact with them.
tr:Hair of İstanbul was created by Seyit12. Seyit12 is also indefinitely blocked for the same reason: undisclosed paid editing. Seyit12's case was quite a bit obvious, as he had been blocked for the exact same reason on the English Wikipedia a few months prior, and is now globally locked.
Why do I bring this up? Because Palaangelino created now-deleted item Q108462152 on Wikidata, which according to the deleting admin was also about Hair of İstanbul. To me, this says that Palaangelino is either the same person as Seyit12, is a part of his team, or offers a similar service as Seyit12, which in all instances means that he is also involved in paid editing. Some of his items at Wikidata have been created on trwiki by SPA's, and are now deleted. Seni seçtim Pokemon. ~Styyx Talk? 10:33, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
I requested CU. Thanks @ Styyx. Kadı Message 13:03, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
  • So I'm currently looking at Draft:Yasin Hacıoğlu, which is also recently created by a possible UPE. When I look at Wikidata item, Q106672382, I see that this has also been created by Palaangelino over a year ago. Every line we take just connects to an increase in suspicion. I think we are having too many coincidences here to still believe in AGF; Palaangelino himself is an UPE. ~Styyx Talk? 12:25, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
In regards to that draft, I suspected a COI campaign to create the article in question, because there are multiple users (I count 4) involved. MarioJump83 ( talk) 09:35, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Aniruddha Jatkar

The editor has been adding 4000-5000 bytes of very promotional content here much of which is unreferenced which I have removed but he has partly reverted, added extra promotional content here and also removed the templates for blp sources and advertisement here. Then I reverted again here with a warning on his talkpage here but I don't want to get in an edit war. With this edit summary here he implies that he is editing on behalf of the subject of the article, Atlantic306 ( talk) 18:30, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Added a second WP:SPA that has only edited this article, concurrently with the first one. The article also has a history of undisclosed paid and WP:SOCK editors. -- Drm310 🍁 ( talk) 21:20, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
Hello, added references from reliable sources to the Achievements section which was removed. Do not understand why the whole section was still removed. Please help out here AnuragIC ( talk) 06:46, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Editor AnuragIC seems to have coi or is perhaps a UPE. scope_creep Talk 10:26, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Swiss School of Business Research

This user has in the past years only edited the [Swiss School of Business Research] page as well as related pages. It appears to me that they try to make the school look as good as possible, and are spreading misinformation about its accreditation. The user consistently aims to add information that the school is accredited by [Swiss quality label for further education institutions], which does not accredit nor deal with higher education. The user is also trying to remove this school from the list of unaccredited Swiss higher education institutions.

My worry is that this user has a conflict of interest. Another user, [User:ViRajPty] was notified of a potential conflict of interest and has said there is none, and they have engaged in talk page discussions. Historyman66 has never responded to talk page discussions nor to my notifying them of the potential COI on their own talkpage.

I would like to add an IP adress to this potential situation, as several edits containing the same misinformation were committed by users not logged in.

Functionist ( talk) 09:37, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

I was directed here via AfD, where the Swiss School of Business Research is up for deletion for the second time. There have been a lot of copyvios, all of which have been revdel'd from the AfD version, but there's now another version in Historyman's sandbox with extant copyvios. It's pretty clear to me that they're not really getting the memo. Iseult Δx parlez moi 14:11, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
The article has now been deleted so I imagine this conflict of interest is no longer really relevant. But we will see. Functionist ( talk) 08:51, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Azeus Systems Holdings Ltd.

Author has declared a COI on their user page, but keeps putting these two spam articles in the mainspace instead of using WP:AFC or in general letting someone uninvolved decide upon them. The articles are filled with primary sources and peacock or promo speech. Fram ( talk) 07:27, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Edit warring, removing AFC templates and not listening to anyone = blocked. SmartSE ( talk) 15:53, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
Thanks. Fram ( talk) 15:55, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

AAR Corp

This editor has repeatedly been instructed to comply with WP:COI and stop adding puffery and advertisements to the article, yet the editor continues to defy WP:COI. Earlier today, the editor literally added a video advertisement to the article. [9] The editor also appears to have added a radio advertisement about how wonderful it is to work at the company. The editor's behavior has been on-going for more than a year. Thenightaway ( talk) 15:30, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Link to previous COIN discussion from April 2021: /Archive 171#AAR_Corp (again) -- Drm310 🍁 ( talk) 16:13, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Walker Corporation and Hattie124

Hattie124 is a user who is, by their own admission, an employee of Walker Corporation and is trying to bring the article up to date. The problem is that their definition of "up-to-date" includes extensive lists of projects, an issue that plagues the article even without his edits, and while I am sympathetic to some of their goals they've gone about it in a less-than-ideal way, making the article somewhat worse on the promotion-by-overdetail front than it already is. — Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 06:08, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi Jeske Couriano. I appreciate you taking the time to provide feedback. Could you please expand on what the specific issues are so that I can fix them. The extensive list of projects are factually correct as they are all Walker Corporation projects - therefore, could you please explain why this would plague the article as it is factually correct and the alternative you suggest? Additionally, when you state "gone about it in a less-than-ideal way", could you please advise the better way to approach this? I have attempted speaking to Wikipedia help chats to try and improve the page and ensure we are abiding by all guides, however, I am not getting any responses - so it would be really beneficial if you could please guide me in the right direction. Thank you. Hattie124 ( talk) 06:19, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
The main issue is promotion by overdetail, with a secondary one being disclosure. With respect to the former, we're not interested in exhaustive lists of everything a subject has ever done - only the most relevant/important work, as determined by press coverage of those projects. I actually did respond to you, albeit belatedly, both times you were in -en-help to try and raise the issues and discuss them. For the latter, you need to disclose your employment on your userpage, not on the article proper.
The best way to go about getting changes made is to request edits be made on the article talk page given your conflict-of-interest, not to make the edits yourself. — Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 06:36, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
Hi Jeske, thank you for your reply. I will do the above you have suggested. In regards to the messages you sent me, where can I find these? As I have checked my inbox and cannot see anything? Thank you. Hattie124 ( talk) 07:13, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Immanuel’s High School Trinidad and Tobago

MER-C ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who typically does an excellent job with quarantining horribly written promotional pieces, not only draftified Draft:Immanuel’s High School Trinidad and Tobago but also tagged the draft as undisclosed paid and even blocked the editor. The strange thing is that nothing about this draft or the page creator (who is now blocked) looks spammy or promotional. Usually we can easily tell apart undisclosed paid editing with all those perfectly formatted new articles about so-called serial entrepreneurs and financial startups created by SPAs, but I am very surprised that a school like this could be undisclosed paid-for spam.

I have asked @ MER-C: at User talk:MER-C#High school article, and he replied, "It's a private school which felt the need to promote itself in those references." To me, this is not enough of a justification. The presence of 3-4 cheap paid "fake news" or PR sites does not necessarily mean that the Wikipedia draft itself is necessarily paid-for spam, since it could be equally, if not more, possible that a random student or teacher at the school had created an inadequately referenced draft and had gotten those references from Google searches. We can tag it as not having enough references or not meeting WP:NSCHOOL, but why the block and undisclosed paid tag without any explanation to the community whatsoever? MER-C does not like to spill the beans, which is something you can't do all the time when dealing with spammers, but doing this to a school stub, which I see as being more similar to geographical location stubs, should require some plausible explanations.

In any case, I'm just a random uninvolved lurker who is wondering why this could happen. I could care less about this school itself, but what concerns me is that does this mean that any random amateur editor could potentially get blocked and have his content deleted or draftified simply for accidentally using the wrong sources from Google while creating a stub about a random neighborhood school? Also, I'm not accusing MER-C of doing this, but this could theoretically happen if something had happened off-wiki between the admin and the page creator or the subject of the article, or in other words, "the tip of the iceberg" of some kind of off-wiki drama. Skokesquak ( talk) 22:45, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

The sources in that draft are really weak, half the content is an uncited list of past principals and "notable" students none of whom are blue links, and you are the only WP:SPA in the conversation. You've come here to announce your own CoI? In the bad old days this would be enough for a CU check. Chris Troutman ( talk) 22:56, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
@ Skokesquak: So you're a "random, uninvolved lurker" who just happened to stumble across the existence of this article/draft? And you seem to be keenly aware of MER-C's excellent track record and reputation, and Wikipedia nomenclature... despite your account being only two days old, and having no edits other than to MER-C's talk page and this one? Maybe you were an IP editor with a more extensive edit history and experience, but it's impossible for us to know if that's true. Anyway, this seems like a pretty spurious accusation to me, and attempt to create drama where none exists. This has the scent of either WP:SOCK or WP:MEAT. -- Drm310 🍁 ( talk) 15:39, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
The WP:DUCK on this one is off the Quack-O-Meter. BubbaJoe123456 ( talk) 21:33, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
Maybe the OP is a sock. I do not know. I am curious about how MER-C concluded that a school that closed down 50 years ago felt the need to promote itself in those references. How could this defunct school pay anyone to write a Wikipedia article? That simply does not add up. Cullen328 ( talk) 21:56, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
I recognise that article as been on Wikipedia before, under a slightly different name. Looking at, it's not the school itself, it is the list of names that are important. Somebody on that list, wants to be on Wikipedia but doesn't have an article, that is why the list is so prominently displayed. scope_creep Talk 23:05, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
That someone paid for those "articles" used as "references" too. MER-C 03:01, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
Well they are dated as brand new. There is many digitial agencies that would creates these these types of articles, for not a lot of money, anywhere. They are not articles in the true sense, nor PR or clickbait. These seem to be these types of non-articles that are seo orientated, essentially a framework article, to drive to traffic to the site and promote the site in Google. It black-hat seo but it is also bog standard digital advertising now. They are intellectually empty. One of them is a press-release from Comtex an aggregation site. They collect them and run analytics and ml on them, to extract business intelligence. I wouldn't be suprised if these articles were just created for a few hundred quid, last week. scope_creep Talk 08:23, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
Discussion moved to WP:AN. Skokesquak ( talk) 21:38, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Regardless of who is asking, this is a legitimate question as Cullen328 has pointed out. You can do whatever you want with a CU or SPI, but I don't care because that's not the point.

This school shut down 50 years. There were four references and they weren't very good. Typically the proper administrative procedure is this: Draftify, warn, remove references. But for this school, there was no explanation whatsoever about why creating a stub about a defunct school warranted a block. This could spook other good-faith users who are creating minimally referenced stubs about defunct schools.

Question:

  • Why this article in particular? There are perhaps dozens of stubs about defunct schools popping up every week, often with poor referencing. Why is this particular school subject to such unusually harsh measures?

Skokesquak ( talk) 21:25, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

@ Skokesquak: lol. This reminds me of the time someone accused me/ Wikipedia of favoring some boating manufacturers over others; as if. When the community points to facts indicative of nefarious purposes and the first thing you do is side-step the question, then you are almost certainly guilty. Please tell us who your client is. Chris Troutman ( talk) 21:37, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
Blocked already. Quick work by @ Bbb23:. Good on you. scope_creep Talk 21:46, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Lil Smoky

User claims to be an amateur rapper, is posting blatantly promotional stuff on their user page, user talk page, and their draft at Draft:Lil Smoky which has been nominated for deletion. He has also promoted himself in mainspace articles such as [10] and [11]. (Redacted)... ( JayPlaysStuff | talk to me | What I've been up to) 00:26, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Oxygen

Over the last few years, a single editor has edited a large number (~60) of science articles to state as fact the controversial claims made in his (AGF; the user account identifies openly as the researcher in question) peer-reviewed published papers.

Diff for the Oxygen article.

Since these mostly concern the chemical properties of oxygen, I have attempted to discuss this with him on the Talk:Oxygen page, which links to a number of other venues in which discussion has happened.

(I believed (and believe) these claims to constitute pseudoscience and a fringe theory, and to be " not even wrong". However, there is no consensus supporting my views in this matter on the WP:FTN. I would have preferred a simple resolution based on the fringe theory guidelines, which is why I hesitated to use WP:COIN.)

Attempts at engaging with this author using the ordinary dispute resolution mechanism have come to an impasse: he insists on language that is unacceptable to me and does not address my concerns.

I believe this is evident from his latest response: [12] (please note that I dispute his contention that recent edits were in keeping with any kind of consensus we have reached).

An RfC on Talk:Oxygen has established that his claims are indeed, at best, controversial, with two strong statements of opposition to the inclusion of his claims. There was no discussion of these claims prior to inclusion that I am aware of. I feel that, at this point, WP:COIN involvement is no longer a "trump card" to prematurely end the dispute, but merely a method of arriving at the foregone conclusion a little sooner, and to conserve everyone's resources.

As stated initially, this concerns a large number of articles. I'm willing to provide diff links or other documentation for the others, if it helps at all.

Note that this does not concern the very good (IMHO) copyediting work done by this editor, his contributions to established science, or his prizes and achievements.

On a more general note, I think it would make sense to clarify whether reporting COI editors to WP:COIN is a responsibility, a suggestion, or merely an option for editors who become aware of them. My understanding, and the reason I'm writing this, is that it is a strong suggestion.

IpseCustos ( talk) 19:50, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

This is a pretty clear cut case - this paper is WP:FRINGE as is evident from only a cursory glance at the title and the fringe theory noticeboard agrees. It is problematic that Klaus Schmidt-Rohr has been adding it to numerous articles, even if it was done in good faith. Whilst it has been cited by other researchers, from looking through their titles, it doesn't appear as if the "Fundamental Corrections to Traditional Bioenergetics" have been accepted by the scientific community. It's currently cited 41 times all of which probably need removing. SmartSE ( talk) 14:43, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
There's a list at User:IpseCustos containing the above-mentioned ~60 articles (for the high-energy oxygen claim) and ~20 more citing the fringe papers. IpseCustos ( talk) 14:45, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
I'll take it out, of the 41, starting now. scope_creep Talk 20:19, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
Done one by reversion, but looking at the rest seem to be custom work on each article. scope_creep Talk 20:28, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
Is it okay if I tackle some of them, or would it be preferred for someone else to do this? If it's the former, is there a template for the edit summary that it would be advisable to use? IpseCustos ( talk) 20:59, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
No, please go ahead. I did notice the paper was added to a lot of articles around mid-2020, so it is well embedded.Edit summary, I would put something like "Restore. Oxygen paper removed... WP:FRINGE Please see the Coin discussion". Some combo thereof would be good. scope_creep Talk 22:12, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
@ Scope creep: Yeah I did a couple yesterday but they do take a while to work out what needs removing - no simple reverts AFAICT. @ IpseCustos: Please do and you can use an edit summary like "rm WP:FRINGE / WP:REFSPAM - see Special:Diff/1093097666" - that's to my post above, but choose a different one if you like. SmartSE ( talk) 11:27, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
@ SmartSE: That looks like a pro edit summary to me and ideal. Ignore mine. I had to withdraw when I saw the complexity of the embedding. It is really outside my knowledge domain unfortunately. Even the one I reverted was slight wrong so I'm better out of it, which has since been fixed by @ IpseCustos:. A start has made, which is good. scope_creep Talk 13:12, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
Oh. Sorry I'm only seeing this now, since I used a link to WP:COIN rather than a permalink to the diff.
Anyway, I started removing the problematic claims and references, making sure not to mark my edits as minor.
@ Klaus Schmidt-Rohr: you have reverted at least one of these changes (just once) and asked others to weigh in here. I've stopped reverting these changes for now, but would like to resume doing so. It seems crystal clear to me that the original edits were in violation of Wikipedia policies and reverting them now is a legitimate course of action. Do you disagree? IpseCustos ( talk) 13:43, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
@ IpseCustos: Can you please do the rest. scope_creep Talk 10:11, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
Done, I think, as far as ref spamming is concerned. I'll have to do a few more searches to make sure I didn't miss any fringiness. Let me know if you see anything I've overlooked. IpseCustos ( talk) 11:14, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
Or at least I thought I was done. More instances keep popping up. At some point it might make sense to go through Klaus Schmidt-Rohr's contributions directly rather than just searching Wikipedia for suspicious phrases, but I don't want to violate WP:HOUND. IpseCustos ( talk) 21:11, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
@ IpseCustos: That doesn't apply here. Its not the correct context for it to apply. The paper must be removed. Its not scientific consensus. If you can find more instances, please remove them. And, thanks for doing the work. scope_creep Talk 22:01, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
Okay, I went through the contributions. Things are fixed for now, but I may come back asking for help if and when the removals are reverted. Thank you both for your help! IpseCustos ( talk) 13:46, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
@ IpseCustos: Thats coolio. Good work. Hopefully they are not reverted. If you see it, please revert and point them to this conversation. Great work. scope_creep Talk 15:43, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Cassava Sciences

This company has been accused of falsifying some data about their Alzheimer's drug which is currently being trialed. It's been pointed out on twitter that 71.41.248.226 is registered to Cassava Sciences (under their previous name of Pain Therapeutics Inc) and they have been making dubious edits to Simufilam and to Lindsay Burns, a Senior Vice Principal of the company, without disclosing their COI even after being warned about the need to a month ago. There are also a lot of similar edits by this IP range. Both articles could do with more experienced eyes to check that they are neutral, verifiable and also compliant with biographical and medical sourcing requirements. SmartSE ( talk) 12:37, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

What a coincidence--there has been a section added June 14th on Cassava by a new editor in the The Journal of Neuroscience article which Tryptofish and I have flagged as of undue weight. --{{u| Mark viking}} { Talk} 20:19, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping. I don't have much to add about the J. Neurosci. page, except that it strikes me that the editing was done by a new editor whose only contributions so far have been to the Journal page and the Cassava Sciences page, and the edits have had a strongly anti-Cassava POV. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 20:25, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
@ Tryptofish and Mark viking: Yes there are definitely some SPAs on the other side as well. I've removed that section as I agree it was undue. SmartSE ( talk) 10:54, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
It sounds like it'd be worth taking several of these pages to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. A month of semi-protection, maybe? Or is there some particular day (e.g., planned IPO, expected regulatory announcements?) that anyone could suggest? WhatamIdoing ( talk) 03:04, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

How to Edit your Law Firm’s Wikipedia Page: 3 Golden Rules

For the interested. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 12:59, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

This is a topic in which I have some interest--and I clicked with trepidation. I was happy to see the advice given is actually pretty good! Will wonders never cease? Dumuzid ( talk) 13:13, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
Not bad at all. I bet they edit regularly. - Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 13:18, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
It was pretty non-dark-arts, wasn't it? Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 13:20, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
She has an exaggerated idea, though, of how much we give a darn that a firm represents a particular client. -- Orange Mike | Talk 15:16, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Singapore FinTech Festival

Two accounts closely linked to the FinTech scene in Singapore. Kwansss is a WP:SPA to the Singapore FinTech Festival, by which they made all their edits on a single day in 2020 and went stale. The article was created by Eesan1969. Sopnendu Mohanty is a "fintech professional" closely linked to STF, an article also created by Eesan1969. Multiple users or IPs over time ( 1, 2, 3, 4, etc), who had placed tags of paid or promotional editing in these articles has resulted in constant defensive removals including making threats to they will "report at ANI next time" by the same user who made these articles, Eesan1969. Also note that the photo on the Sopnendu Mohanty article was uploaded by Eesan1969 themselves, including as being the copyright holder. In fact they did this today, after the previous image which was uploaded by an account that only uploaded that very image, was tagged as a copyright violation. Also, all of Eesan1969's uploads on the Wikimedia Commons is connected to the STF, with photos taken by them at the event. 119.202.99.133 ( talk) 15:37, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

I am not based in Singapore. I am part of a fintech society and attended Singapore FinTech Festival in 2018, that's all my connection with Singapore FinTech Festival ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and Sopnendu Mohanty ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and other. My real world identy is known by Wikimedia Commons Administrators. Kwansss ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and a few other accounts belong to my colleagues from the socity and created experimentaly with my assistance. I started to contribute Wikipedia much earlier. Eesan1969 ( talk) 15:55, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

SpaceX tourists

Isaacman has contracted SpaceX for a vanity space tourism operation in which he is described as a "mission commander" and the occupants of the fully automated capsules are described as astronauts. I opened a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spaceflight#Are space tourists astronauts? Are they flying "missions"? on how Wikipedia is describing this, I would appreciate if more editors chip in there. I am concerned by Xpenz's edits who has been adding the astronaut designation to these tourists for quite some time ( [13], [14]).-- StellarNerd ( talk) 20:00, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

This is not correct, all of these people you mentioned all received FAA Commercial Human Spaceflight Recognition wings, witch allows them the commercial astronaut title. However this ended in late 2021. And all none government employed people who reached space and orbit cannot be called commercial astronaut anymore. Axiom Mission 1 is a mission that took place after 2021 and none of these people are called commercial astronaut, I all labeled them as Space tourists. Same goes with Blue Origin NS-20 and Blue Origin NS-21 Xpenz ( talk) 20:21, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
@ StellarNerd: What has this got to do with conflict of interest? Unless Xpenz is being paid by some of the space tourists or works for SpaceX, this isn't the right forum for discussing it. SmartSE ( talk) 15:46, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
The very promotional framing of these people and narrow focus on these people and company. -- StellarNerd ( talk) 19:32, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Frank E. Holmes

The article Frank E. Holmes contains multiple edits from the same three users indicating a potential wp:COI. A user interaction analysis reveals very close overlap in edits for Jguyer, Jetsflyhigh and user:Badgerta. See: https://sigma.toolforge.org/editorinteract.py?users=Jetsflyhigh&users=Jguyer&users=Badgerta&startdate=&enddate=&ns=&server=enwiki) The article itself seems extremely self-promotional. Volcom95 ( talk) 03:30, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Volcom95, Looks like an AfD candidate. I'm not seeing anything to establish notability in a quick glance at the sources. Toss in Promo and COI and got something better left off the encyclopedia. Slywriter ( talk) 03:33, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
That was my first impression but I didn't want to be too aggresive. Are you going to AfD or should I? Volcom95 ( talk) 03:37, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
Whichever you like. Twinkle makes it relatively painless for me, so if you have to do it manually, Ill happily save you the time. Slywriter ( talk) 03:44, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
Special:Diff/1012328352 is when it got hijacked by COI/PR team. Pretty sure this is yet another Cryptocurrency PR job. Trying to figure out if he is notable based on the older version and some WP:BEFORE. Article is 12 years old. Slywriter ( talk) 03:48, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
WP:BEFORE leans towards better than 50% chance of establishing notability. There is the NYT in current article which discusses in-depth, though admittedly in context of company and other potentially good sources in the previous version. Not sure if a revert to the pre-COI version would be best, but suspect AfD will not be the best place to clean this up the more I dig. I'll look more in the morning, if others haven't by then Slywriter ( talk) 04:06, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Tracy Bartram

The standard COI--largely unsourced puff. Article badly needs paring and sources to be acceptable. 2601:188:180:B8E0:E88A:3DEE:416D:8F23 ( talk) 04:48, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Jeanie Roland and her restaurants

Jeanie Roland and the articles for her restaurants The Perfect Caper and Ella’s Fine Food and Drink were all created recently by three different new accounts. This is clearly not only undisclosed paid editing but also clearly attempts at hiding that fact. valereee ( talk) 14:50, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

valereee, handled (was alerted to this by someone else) - everyone here is  Confirmed to one another and to known Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bodiadub accounts. I've done a whole bunch of G5ing, and the two articles up for AfD are also G5-eligible (but I prefer not to G5 when there's an ongoing AfD). GeneralNotability ( talk) 18:06, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
Oh, interesting, GN, thanks! Duh, I hadn't even thought about the fact it was also obvious socking. valereee ( talk) 20:21, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

@ GeneralNotability: found a couple more socks:

See Draft:Avery Andon (art dealer), c:File:Avery in 2020.jpg, Draft:Laurent Tourondel, File:Laurent mugshot.png. MER-C 02:11, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

@ MER-C: Another SPA - Pricetagg - came up in the edit history of Draft:Avery Andon (art dealer) before I nom'd it for G5. I wonder if it's another sock of Bodiadub. -- Drm310 🍁 ( talk) 05:31, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

GeneralNotability these also look pretty suspicious to me:

If it turns out they're connected, it would be nice to just be able to speedy. valereee ( talk) 15:39, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

valereee, nope, no connection I can see on those two. MER-C, Drm310, good spots - NFTLoved, DrinkingWater47, and Pricetagg are all  Confirmed to each other and this latest batch. GeneralNotability ( talk) 01:47, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

2022 pageantry UPE

blocked editors in sandbox page history
pages indexed in sandbox

I suspect that there is a bunch of UPE going on around pageantry articles again. See COIN archive 164 for historical context.

We have one editor blocked recently as a sock of an LTA. I admit it's hard to tell who's a fan and who's UPE. Intercontinental coordinated editing that seems to promote the pageants, though, says something.

Inviting other COINers to consider the purpose of User:Missgluegurl/sandbox. I've brought this up at Bbb23's talkpage as a SPI-related issue but without these UPE-related concerns. Why the spike in pageviews around 5/30? Why the random set of users editing there? Why the index- and template-like contents? I'll reserve my tentative conclusion (call it an educated guess) until other people chime in. ☆ Bri ( talk) 19:32, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

West Ta East

The unregistered editor states, in an edit summary, that they have watched the show on Youtube as a paid member. See https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=West_Ta_East&type=revision&diff=1093134583&oldid=1093104073&diffmode=source This is a conflict of interest and should be declared, but the unregistered editor has not acknowledged a conflict of interest in response to the notice by User:Bonadea. Robert McClenon ( talk) 20:58, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
To add to this, the IP edits are extremely similar to previous edits (see here in particular) by Einstientesla, who identified themselves as being the copyright owner of an image sourced here to someone who would almost certainly have a COI. BubbaJoe123456 ( talk) 18:26, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

This is not a problem confined to West Ta East. There have been repeated efforts
In addition to Einstientesla, an editor who has been heavily involved in promoting King is Positiveilluminati who has also edited as Godlypresence. There's also an editing overlap between Einstientesla and Positiveilluminati in Digangana Suryavanshi, where Positiveilluminati has a clear COI. Positiveilluminati and the IP listed above do some very similar things (MOS violating use of bold text, increasing image size in infoboxes, longish and rather uncivil edit summaries, garbled English in articles and elsewhere), so it's obvious to me that they are the same user, and that they are hired to market Ramiz King on Wikipedia. -- bonadea contributions talk 14:06, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
This is not true, I have nothing to do with what you’re saying and you’re hiding away from the point I mate about why would you remove such a credible and the most current article from
ABC, on what basis when that explains the entire concept, I agree I may not be as experienced as you but I do not write falsehood, I take accountability for my err I’m in writing in a promotional tone but the premise of the show I have only stated it as per ad what ABC news reported it as which you’re hiding or removing repeatedly. Why? For instance even if I was from Ramiz King team which I am not does it still give you the right to take vengeance and remove credible sources and write your own personal v understanding ? Positiveilluminati ( talk) 14:17, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
If you’re so very right then allow another party of editors to do an analysis on the source which you removed which was the parent source to the one additional source and then you can undo the edit if they too deem that the ABC news is spreading falsehood. Your current doing is basically implying ABC AUSTRALIA is incorrect in their reporting and spreads falsehood. Positiveilluminati ( talk) 14:21, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
I have nothing to do with the allegations you’re putting on me all I’m asking on what basis you removed ABC Australia article when it’s an australia commissioned show and they personally interviewed them and why are you removing the premise of the show I wrote aw per aw the source? Forgive me for the promotional tone but the premise is what I fight for, it is misleading what you’re writing. Positiveilluminati ( talk) 14:27, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
Actual sequence of events: between 23:27 last night and 11:01 this morning (UTC), you made multiple edits (logged in and logged out – please make sure that you are logged in to this account when you edit Wikipedia), which were problematic for many reasons including violations of the Manual of Style, nearly incomprehensible phrasing, inappropriate image size changes, and promotional style. You also made multiple personal attacks in the edit summaries. Somwehere in there, you added the source from abc.net.au, which hadn't been in the article previously, though it looks like you thought it was. Since the changes overall were disruptive and completely ignored the talk page discussion, I reverted them in one fell swoop at 12:49 (UTC). You restored most of them at 13:40, and instead of reverting you again, I copyedited the content, fixed the formatting, and did some other necessary edits, publishing that version at 13:57. The abc.net.au source was not removed (well, I added another copy of it by mistake, so I removed the duplicate). Your posts above are from 14:17, 14:21, and 14:27, so you are registering a complaint about something that had already been fixed. This is not the point of the discussion, however. The point is that there is a coordinated effort to promote Ramiz King on Wikipedia. -- bonadea contributions talk 15:16, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

To my justice, yes IP address can be similar I never denied a connection with them But it’s only because we are using the same wifi network I think? And there’s a group of people who don’t promote Ramiz King Biasedlu only but all our favourite mtv stars or Bigg boss people hence our edits on the selected individual and fighting for our friends like emiway bantai and as a fan of PRATIK sehajpal we are on the drive to let the biased behaviour be diminished in Wikipedia which some participate and also during this journey we’ve discovered afghan media is in need of help as they don’t have facility like we all do and Wikipedia should consider that and the editors. Einstientesla ( talk) 21:03, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Aniruddha Jatkar

Unfortunately, this is a repeat of Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive_190#Aniruddha Jatkar from just two weeks ago. It seems be re-occurring. Cheers, SVT Cobra 01:02, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

See my recent edits and edit summaries on this article. This user been insincere about this complaint as seen last time. [20] Whether this is a case of COI or not is not clear but the user is surely WP:NOTHERE. 110.227.234.16 ( talk) 04:35, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Samir.hashisho

Samer.hashisho just keeps resubmitting over and over drafts for companies that are owned by the same parent company. They've never responded to messages on their talk, including one asking them to disclose their clear paid contributor status. Never made a talk posting anywhere. valereee ( talk) 13:21, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

It seems to be a case of WP:NOTHERE. The dairy article, that has been floating about for about two years in various forms. Now I recognise it. scope_creep Talk 14:20, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
And also undisclosed WP:PAID. I'll leave them a warning about that just so it's on the record. -- Drm310 🍁 ( talk) 17:03, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
They are still editing while refusing to communicate. I've had enough... I've contacted paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org with the relevant on- and off-wiki evidence. -- Drm310 🍁 ( talk) 14:21, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
Samer.hashisho is now blocked for undisclosed paid editing, and all of their promotional edits have been deleted. Good report, Valereee. -- Drm310 🍁 ( talk) 21:56, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Emil.stanev

Another one, trying to create the same two articles from the same parent company. All the versions of La Crima Dairy that have been created so far need to be salted, IMO. Draft:LÀCRIMA DAIRY. valereee ( talk) 15:56, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Oh, definitely another undisclosed paid editor here. I've left a {{ uw-paid1}} notice but if they come back without disclosing, I'm not going to wait around before reporting them. -- Drm310 🍁 ( talk) 17:12, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Crystal Head Vodka

SPA keeps re-adding long unsourced list of awards. No response to COI notice on their TP. MB 21:07, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

@ MB: Thanks for bringing here. The have an obvious undisclosed COI/being paid to edit here and all of their edits have been promotional over many years. I've blocked them accordingly. SmartSE ( talk) 11:48, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
Engaging in UPE/COI editing will end in Nothing but Trouble. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 11:51, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

UPE Honkaku Spirits

Draft:Honkaku_Spirits contains clear signs of UPE with intent to game/conceal that. valereee ( talk) 19:00, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

The reference to the Shurtleff / Apyagi book is absurdly incompetent. It links to a search for the phrase "Ultimately, the whisky trust collapsed because of trust-busting legislation enacted by the Illinois General Assembly in 1891 and the depression of 1893", but not properly surrounded by quote marks. The result is naturally a swarm of hits for salient words like in, and, by, of etc etc. But nothing daunted, the editors offer this search as a "source". (By adding the missing quote mark, I found the sentence on p. 179, but that didn't fix the problem. It's a quote not from the text in the book, but from a footnote quoting a journal article, which I think was in turn quoting something else — it's not entirely clear. So there's everything possible wrong with this "source".) As detailed by Valereee in her rejection of the draft, here, the other sources don't support notability either, but bear the hallmarks of press releases. Bishonen | tålk 21:05, 30 June 2022 (UTC).

Weatherford College

This is a single-purpose editor who only edits this article and has ignored multiple warnings and questions from different editors. It is reasonable to suspect a COI, perhaps even an undisclosed paid editing relationship. ElKevbo ( talk) 22:25, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

I have page-blocked the user indefinitely from Weatherford College. Bishonen | tålk 07:21, 1 July 2022 (UTC).

User:Vika007, User:Serebroo, User:Napoleonico007

User accounts Vika007, Napoleonico007 and Serebroo all are (almost) solely dedicated to edit articles related to Lena Hades. I have asked Vika007 to disclose whether she is related to Lena Hades (Vika007 has been editing Hades-related articles for 8+ years, often fixing the ever-moving "official website" for Hades), but Vika007 ignored my question.

I strongly suspect these user accounts are either operated by Hades herself, or are affiliated with her. Worth mentioning, in Russian wikipedia, there is ru:User:Serebro (notice the similarity to "Serebroo" username) who also edited mostly Hades-related articles. What's interesting is that both ru:User:Serebro and Vika007 describe themselves as "enthusiasts for modern art", art majors or in similar manner (texts on their userpages are almost identical). "Serebro", as I have discovered, has also been active at least in Spanish Wikipedia too ( es:User:Serebroo).. where she also edits Hades-related articles. There could be more accounts belonging to this editor, but I only found three (or four, if you consider "Serebroo" and "Serebro" to be separate). 178.121.33.109 ( talk) 16:07, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

User:Vika007 denied any connection to Lena Hades or the other aforementioned user accounts on her talk page. 178.121.33.109 ( talk) 13:15, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

User:Nehme1499's paid editing

User:Nehme1499 has advanced rights such as autopatroller and NPR, but they are a paid editor? Not sure, if Wikipedia community confers such rights to paid editors (or, at least remove autopatrolled because it has been abused?). Paid articles should go through AfC, so they can be reviewed by a neutral editor. Nehme1499 hasn't followed despite being an established editor. Also, they haven't declared where they advertise or how they acquire clients? It is required by Wikimedia TOU, so they should do that.

Perhaps, a warning and draftification of their articles should work? Biographies such as Kazim Fayad are completely non-notable. 95.233.30.130 ( talk) 06:00, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

In accordance with the Terms of Use, I must disclose [my] employer [...] in at least one of the following ways: 1. a statement on your user page (done), 2. a statement on the talk page accompanying any paid contributions (done) [...]. What is not permitted is paid contributions without disclosure (my emphasis), which is not what I have done. Also, I make sure that, regardless of whether I have been paid or not for the articles I publish, they all pass the WP:GNG guideline (which, from my viewpoint, all five of the articles listed above do). Peter Khalife, for example, was proposed for deletion and kept (with no one voting to delete). Paid articles should go through AfC and they haven't declared where they advertise: could you please point me to the guideline stating that these are necessary? Nehme 1499 06:14, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
Also, I find it strange that the IP/user's only edits are regarding my paid editing. Nehme 1499 06:15, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
@ Nehme1499: See WP:PAY, you should put new articles through the Articles for Creation (AfC) process instead of creating them directly. –  Joe ( talk) 10:46, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
The risk of the autopatrolled right being abused exceeds the small cost of other volunteers having to review articles. Best practice for paid editors is to use AFC. Looking at Kazim Fayad there are definitely issues with sourcing that AFC could have addressed. I will be removing this right for sure and will also look into the use of patroller too as we have often seen that abused. @ Kudpung: 99% you'll agree with this, but just FYIng as you added the autopatrolled right back in 2020 2019 (I think prior to any paid editing). SmartSE ( talk) 10:25, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
(I'm only here because I was pinged). It's not just holders of autopatrolled or NPP rights. There are possibly still some admins who secretly write for pay. I used to enjoy doing the forensics to flush them out and it's one of the reasons why I still strongly campaign for improvement of NPP even though I will usually run a mile from the New Pages Feed these days. I think all paid editors, whoever they are, should be ashamed of exploiting for financial gain what volunteers have spent thousands of hours building for free. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 12:22, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
I've also draftified that article to Draft:Kazim Fayad. SmartSE ( talk) 10:29, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
I've also pulled new page reviewer (courtesy ping granting admin @ Swarm:). It's also too sensitive to trust to paid editors.
@ Nehme1499: I find it a bit suspicious that you created your first disclosed paid article, Peter Khalife, four days after you requested the NPP right. Were you aware that you were very unlikely to be granted it as a paid editor? –  Joe ( talk) 10:56, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
Good decision on the Draft:Kazim Fayad draft. scope_creep Talk 11:08, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
I was not aware of WP:PAY, so that's on me. Were you aware that you were very unlikely to be granted it as a paid editor? Not really. Actually, I had been advised to apply for NPP by another user. Regarding pulling my Autopatrolled and RPR rights, I'm fine with that. Though, I wonder what the benefit of my honesty is. I feel like had I not disclosed anything on my userpage + article talk pages we would not be here (just to clarify, this is not my modus operandi, I would still prefer to be upfront and disclose my COI). What is not seen in the background is that I refused service to many other individuals who had contacted me, on the basis that I felt that WP:GNG was not met. Just to be clear, I don't advertise my services anywhere: some individuals contact me privately via social media and ask me to create them an article (per what I said above, I usually refuse). Nehme 1499 14:02, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
Just completely out of the clear blue sky, international footballers (or their representatives) contact you on social media? How do they even know you are a Wikipedian? If you ask me, this explanation stretches credulity. -- SVT Cobra 19:36, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
Knowing people in Lebanon is not difficult, it's a small circle. My friend works as a journalist, he knows other guys, these guys know agents, who in turn know the footballers, etc... It's all a chain reaction to get from the footballer/agent to me. Nehme 1499 19:40, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
So it's word-of-mouth advertising, as opposed to literal online advertising? -- SVT Cobra 20:00, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
I guess it's inverse advertising, if that makes sense. I never made any active effort in making myself known as a Wikipedia editor. The footballers ask a friend if they know someone who edits Wikipedia, they in turn ask others until they reach me. I guess having already made a few Wikipedia pages for some people, word spread. I never really specifically asked them to pay me as well. They asked me to make a page and offered money. If I see that WP:GNG is met, I accept. Otherwise I don't. Nehme 1499 20:05, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
This also doesn't even begin to cover your serious conflict of interest. Without getting too far into it because I'm not going to out you, it's pretty telling in many of the articles you've written, that the sourcing largely goes back to one company, specifically one that engages in sports coverage and said source(s) are largely added to Wikipedia almost exclusively by you. PRAXIDICAE🌈 20:19, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
I'm also the only editor who deals with Lebanese football on Wikipedia, so naturally no one else is going to add sources dealing with that topic. Nehme 1499 20:30, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
That...isn't even remotely related to the point that is being made and is also patently untrue. PRAXIDICAE🌈 21:02, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
I answered your statement added to Wikipedia almost exclusively by you. I don't know which website you are talking about, but I'd assume that since I'm (almost) the only one to use it as a source it must be about Lebanese football. That is also patently untrue: you're saying that there are other regular Wikipedia editors who deal with Lebanese football? Lots deal with football, a few regarding Asian or Middle Eastern football, but no one specifically about Lebanese. If the website is Lebanese, I don't see how other users are going to care about using it in non-Lebanese related topics. I frankly don't understand what this is about. Nehme 1499 21:14, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
You know very well that if I disclose exactly which sources I'm talking about it would run afoul of outing. So it's your choice, you need to also disclose your COI or the information can be sent to arbcom to avoid WP:OUTING here. PRAXIDICAE🌈 15:55, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment Either way, it is a clear COI. scope_creep Talk 21:30, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
My paid editing? Yes, I also disclosed that appropriately. Regarding the second half of this discussion, I'm not sure what we are talking about. Nehme 1499 21:36, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

User:Chipmunkdavis

Suspected state/paid editor. After consensus was reached on article talk page for Russia a single sentence was added. Two users have tried to delete this text multiple times. After Chipmunkdavis was notified that consensus was reached on the talk page they continued to revert the edit. Ironically, trying to hide the fact that Russia is at war, they engaged in their own edit war. Any support would be appreciated here, as we all know Russia is actively engaged in information warfare on Wikipedia.

Colinmcdermott ( talk) 11:13, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Three different editors have disagreed with you; I have now reverted your most recent edit, as there is no consensus on the talk page to add that sentence. I would suggest that you withdraw this before a WP:BOOMERANG for WP:EDIT WARRING and casting WP:ASPERSIONS. BilledMammal ( talk) 11:37, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
I agree with BilledMammal on this, there is clearly no consensus for inclusion at this point, and edit summaries like this and this contain clear personal attacks and aspersions. WP:VANDALISM also has a specific meaning, and this ain't it. Withdrawing your complaint now will likely save you a significant headache soon. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 11:46, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
This is clearly a content dispute and not a COI on CMD's part. I do not see any consensus on the article's talkpage. Seloloving ( talk) 15:36, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Interesting to see how successful Russia have been infiltrating Wikipedia in this information war. There is a 3v2 consensus on talk page, yet this means nothing to editors with a strange history of making pro-Kremlin edits. People who should no better looking the other way. Colinmcdermott ( talk) 17:25, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Everyone who disagrees with me is Russia. Please read WP:ASPERSIONS. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 17:27, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
@ Colinmcdermott: Even if we we went by raw headcount and not the merits of arguments, I see 3 supports and 3 opposes. — C.Fred ( talk) 17:33, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
"3v2 consensus" is an oxymoron; also please see WP:NOTVOTE. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:08, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
  • @ Colinmcdermott: the chances that Chipmunkdavis is a Russian state agent are near zero... I can assure you of that based on extensive interactions with them over the years across a wide variety of topic areas. Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 19:55, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
    Sounds like something a red would say! ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 19:58, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
    Oh, pipe down, 007! Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 20:03, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

The Good Boss

We have a user repeatedly adding a bit-part child actor (which you can easily check her name in the diffs, but I will refer to here as "girlname") to the cast section of The Good Boss ( [21] [22] [23] [24]) (see Love Gets a Room for a similar pattern [25] [26] [27] [28]) bringing imdb.com as a source. Despite several warnings, the user (featuring a username similar to that of girlname) refrains to edit with authoritative sources (instead of imdb) or disclose a conflict of interest and prefers to engage in edit warring, returning girlname to the cast. Imdb review section for both films is full of people extolling girlname, purportedly relatives of girlname.--Asqueladd ( talk) 14:32, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

No. No. No. I have added ALL the cast of the 2 pages: The Good Boss (El buen patrón) and Love Gets a Room in the right order, with references and lots of dedication. My editing is accurate and ads important and valuable information to Wikipedia. This user (Asqueladd) is reverting and reverting my editing, with ugly comments and threatening language. The "girlname" in question appears in both movies (with important roles) and she also appears in both trailers. I'm not promoting anybody, only adding important information to Wikipedia. This user (Asqueladd) argues that IMDb is not a reliable source. IMDb is the most reliable source in cinema today (worldwide). This user (Asqueladd) is making that Wikipedia becomes an unpleasant community. Please take some constructive action. Thank you very much & many greetings Antonia Tejeda Barros ( talk) 14:42, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
Just a comment regarding the content dispute: sources other than IMDb, such as this and this, also credit the girl as being part of the cast. Nehme 1499 14:50, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
Antonia Tejeda Barros, your comment that IMDb is "the most reliable source in cinema today" is the opposite of what has been agreed by the wikipedia community. See WP:IMDB and WP:UGC for why it is considered unreliable here and therefore why you should stop using it. Melcous ( talk) 23:13, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
In terms of the Conflict of Interest, it is fairly easy to see from edits here + IMDB what the relationship between the editor and the subject is. Editing about family members is a clear conflict of interest, and should be disclosed and the talk page used to propose changes. Melcous ( talk) 23:21, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Jon Entine

The account seems to have tacitly admitted that they are the subject, but has not been explicit about it. Orange Mike | Talk 16:00, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

@ Orangemike: The edit summary in this edit is a pretty clear disclosure of their identity. -- Drm310 🍁 ( talk) 04:53, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
Not really sure what the specific issue is here? Those of us that edit the actual BLP have been aware of this for some time based on previous talk discussions and generally have handling any egregious promotional edits that came from them. Most of the time it's just been run of the mill BLP subject wanting to add material and tension with Wikipedia standards. They made a few minor edits to their BLP recently that were rejected ( some rightly so), but that's about it, and it's been extremely quiet just prior to yesterday. I'd suggest using the article talk pages for minor things like this rather than jumping to a noticeboard. KoA ( talk) 16:08, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Brandon Friedman

There's been what looks to me like serial UPE at this article going back to its creation, and I tagged it. Editor Nmd1978, who recently created an article for Friedman's business Rakkasan Tea Company, came in and untagged it. I retagged and opened a discussion at Talk:Brandon Friedman. Nmd1978, who is new enough to perhaps not realize that's where they should have gone next, instead removed the tag again. I pinged them again to the talk, and we've been discussing, but they're quite insistent that the article not be tagged. I thought another set of eyes might be helpful. valereee ( talk) 19:10, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Valereee, I initially added COI tag but after doing cleanup, removed it since whatever damage COIs have done is currently not in the article. Guess time will tell if a COI editor is still lingering. Slywriter ( talk) 20:55, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
@ Slywriter, happy to leave it off with the edits you made. I do think that with the history of what to me looks like serial UPE editing, we need to keep an eye on this article. There'll be another along in a bit. valereee ( talk) 21:09, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Added to my watchlist. Will review the book article later, it has issues as well. Slywriter ( talk) 21:12, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
oooh, hadn't even looked at the book article. :D valereee ( talk) 21:14, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Alfred University

This editor has acknowledged being an employee of the university paid to edit its Wikipedia article but refuses to communicate in any way and continues to edit the article in problematic ( WP:POV, WP:UNIGUIDE, etc.) ways. ElKevbo ( talk) 22:59, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

I've put it on my watch list, if only because I was encouraged to attend this institution many years ago (though I did not do so!). Cheers. Dumuzid ( talk) 23:13, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Operation Atalanta

The article Operation Atalanta appears to have been subjected to long-term editing by the organization's public affairs office (see two blocked accounts above). I haven't had the opportunity to sift through their additions, but there appears to be a lot of WP:PRIMARY source material, a lot of which I will guess isn't suitable. If anyone else is able to evaluate and pare back irrelevant content, it would be appreciated. Drm310 🍁 ( talk) 14:19, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_190&oldid=1099694777"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The unearthing of massive UPE operation

Note: moved from WP:ANI. Levivich 16:21, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Agency Name: RankHawn HQ Location: Bangalore, India Official Website: https://rankhawn.com/

Claims to be Wikipedia Page Creator at their Website - https://rankhawn.com/wikipedia-page-creation-service/

Claims to be Wikipedia Page Creator at third-party sites such as directories - [Zoompo https://www.zoompo.com/rankhawn/], [SartUs https://www.startus.cc/company/rankhawn], [ExportersIndia https://www.exportersindia.com/rankhawn/].


Now, let's focus on their client list (as mentioned on their Website - https://rankhawn.com/our-clients/);

Current Status: The page is LIVE!!
User:Lapablo is a sockpuppet of User:Ukpong1
The page moved back to draft multiple times; these two IDs moved it back to the main article namespace; User:DrJNU and User:Sonofstar.
Current status: The page is LIVE!!
  • Tata 1mg - Page created by another blocked ID User:Myconcern. The page was nominated for an AfD on May 24, 2021, but it attracted a bunch of meatpuppets (as User:MER-C has rightly identified it), out of which only one survived User:Sonofstar and did pretty well to influence the outcome.
Current status: The page is LIVE!!
Current status: The page is finally in a draft, thanks to Praxidicae
Current status: The page is finally in a draft, thanks to Praxidicae
Also, note, that it is because of this draftification, I was dragged to ANI for the third time by this gang of UPEs.
  • smallcase - Created by an SPA. But page was pushed back to draft by an another UPE, User:Germankitty (who happens to be blocked) and again moved it back to mainspace by User:Alookaparatha (also blocked) and edited further by User:GA99(also blocked) and User:User:Behind the moors.
Current status: The page is currently going through AfD, thanks to HighKing
  • Tejas Networks - Page created by a low-level ID - User:Diamondchandelier. Genuinely passed AfC, maybe because of WP:LISTED. But, it was further edited by User:Alookaparatha
Current status: The page is LIVE!
Current status: The page is LIVE!
Current status: The page is LIVE!

I started this investigation on my end after facing the third ANI case , which was launched against me by the same group of UPEs. The way they tried to influence the ANI discussion by seeding doubts (against me) in the minds of other participants made me more determined to seek them outside Wikipedia. That determination led me to gather more information about paid Wikipedia services providers (in India and South Asia), and gradually I started updating the WP:PAIDLIST. However, I was not so hopeful in the beginning. But, giving up is not an option when your reputation is attacked. Kindly note that I intentionally added the screenshots of RankHawn's webpages to Wikimedia Commons. We should have some proof if they try to modify/update their website to hide the trail. So let's end this once and for all. - Hatchens ( talk) 15:01, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

  • Two issues with this report 1) Why is this here instead of WP:COIN? This seems more suited to that noticeboard. 2) Your diffs don't show any conflicts of interest. For example, your proof for your first bullet is just the dif where the draft was moved to the main space. How do I know, only by looking at that dif, that there is a problem? Same for many of the others. You've made a lot of serious accusations here, but you're light on evidence and on possible solution. And, as I said, this is the wrong venue. -- Jayron 32 15:29, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
    Jayron32, I too feel this is the wrong venue. But, have you considered looking at the external links like this which mentions the names of companies that are clients of RankHawn. Ofcourse, this indicates that the Wikipedia articles of any of these are UPE cases, imho ─ The Aafī on Mobile (talk) 15:40, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
    This should be moved to WP:COIN for further comments. I hope some admin takes care of it. @ MER-C:, your opinions on this, please? ─ The Aafī on Mobile (talk) 15:42, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
    If that's the case, then the paid editing is hardly undeclared, n'est ce pas? I mean, if they are literally publicly declaring this, it's not UPE, is it? This hardly merits the sort of moral panic-type post above, and yes WP:COIN is the correct venue. -- Jayron 32 15:45, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
    Jayron32, declaration on some other website is not sufficient under either the Foundation's terms of use or enwiki's local policy implementing the terms. Cabayi ( talk) 15:56, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
    Fair enough. This is still not WP:COIN. -- Jayron 32 15:59, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Please take this to WP:COIN. -- Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 16:09, 20 May 2022 (UTC)


Nothing to add except that I have no affiliations with this rankhawn or whatever it is called. This is exactly why I gave up my AFC rights. You do a ton of AFC and then get dragged in stuff like this. Hatchens don't have a lot of ground honestly after the deletion of Koenig Institute and Prasun Chatterjee that they accepted/NPP, and defended. Their affiliations with Nikhil Kamath are still unanswered. I also see them requesting Smallcase to be redirected to Zerodha (Nikhil Kamath's company).

Nomadicghumakkad ( talk) 16:16, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

  • Manyavar was created, quarantined, and patrolled all by blocked spammers ( Juggyevil, MickyShy and Aloolkaparatha). OkCredit is also suspicious, having been patrolled by the same spammer as Manyavar. MER-C 17:10, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
    there is a need of policy or guideline that covers this underground UPE. There are plethora of such websites [rings] operating on the Wikipedia, and if I'm not wrong a plenty of editors associated would be those in good-standing over here. This "underground ring" has understood how Wikipedia works and that's how they do their business. This needs more than a block or a sanction. ─ The Aafī on Mobile (talk) 18:03, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
  • So, we have two completely different issues here. The first is how do we deal with UPE accounts, and the second, mostly unrelated matter, is how do we deal with the articles that have been created this way. The first seems easy. Blocking the accounts seems perfectly reasonable, we have plenty of policy backing to do so, WP:NOTHERE is sufficient. The second is dealing with the articles. That's also easy. We read the article and pretend it wasn't created inappropriately. We just erase that idea from our minds. Then we assess it against the same standards we would any article, take the ones that don't belong at Wikipedia to AFD, edit the other ones to clean up any tone/NPOV issues, and then go back to the rest of our lives. UPE is a problem, but it's a problem dealt with using the mechanisms we use for dealing with any problems. We block/ban any users who violate standards, and we use normal editing processes to deal with their mess, being sure not to cut off our own nose just to spite our faces. -- Jayron 32 18:33, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
  • I am grateful to Jayron32 for their very cear distinction between the UPE editor (block them to hell and back - I paraphrase) and the article (treat it like any other article), and agree wholeheartedly with the element regarding the UPE editors
I have sympathy with their view on articles. However I also do not wish to reward UPE. I believe we should take the approach that clear UPE created articles without edits by other parties (substantive edits, not cosmetic edits) should be treated in the same way as we treat articles created by blocked users evading their block. Delete and consider salting if saltig be justified. Those that have received substantive edits by non UPE editors should be held up against our policies WP:N and WP:V, and face deletion or retention on that basis, by an appropriate deletion mechanism, inclising speedy deletion for egregious cases.
I am also grateful to Hatchens for brigning their thoughts first to ANI and then, more properly (albeit by consensus at ANI), to here. 🇺🇦  FiddleTimtrent  FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 18:45, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
  • I am not entirely clear on what actions are being requested here and how our existing policies and practices are inadequate. I do think that it would be really helpful if the foundation could offer more active, direct support in combatting UPE, especially in cases where there are many people or a large organization(s) involved that exceeds the capabilities of a volunteer editor. This does seem like an area where some paid staff could really help us volunteers. ElKevbo ( talk) 19:55, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Again thanks to Hatchens for bringing this to the community's attention. This practice is likely more widespread that we acknowledge and should be dealt with swiftly whenever discovered. I also agree 100% that UPE editors should not be rewarded in any way, shape or form. Any articles in which they have been substantially involved should be deleted because to leave those articles in place means that the UPE delivered a "satisfied" customer. It might sound overly-harsh, but if their "customers" end up denied the coverage promised by the UPE editors it will discourage future participants. HighKing ++ 20:19, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
  • What if we were to, say, append a COI template that also applies NOINDEX? We keep the page so that it can be worked on (if it's otherwise acceptable) and they're denied the Google rankings they're looking for. — Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 20:45, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Is it though? A "customer" would still be able to see *their* paid-for space on Wikipedia, UPE would still get paid. COI template might even encourage some UPE's (see, we can break the rules and *still* get your page live). Not seeing a workable disincentive here. HighKing ++ 20:51, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
  • The entire reason they want the article is to exploit most search engines' favouring of Wikipedia, and thru that drive traffic to their web pages from the links in article. This is not an instance where NOFOLLOW would help since the goal is to have a publicly-searchable Wikipedia article that tops search engine rankings. — Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 21:28, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
By default, yes, those templates should apply NOINDEX. But not as a solution to UPE. HighKing ++ 20:52, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
I second HK. This is not any solution to the UPE problems. No-indexing ≠ not having a Wikipedia article. All those people or companies want a Wikipedia article, and don't care about its Google indexing, perhaps for some reasons; who cares with the "within Wikipedia known stuff"? This needs a stricter stick. ─ The Aafī on Mobile (talk) 21:02, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
The only other thing they would want a Wikipedia article for is social media verification, from experience. Most such websites accept a Wikipedia article, as long as it's properly referenced and written, for verification. The issue is that most of these people either assume the Wikipedia article is the easiest option (ignoring the "properly referenced and written" part) or ignore far easier requirements that would make a Wikipedia article for the purpose redundant (for example, Twitter also allows one to submit multiple news articles for verification, a requirement which at best dovetails with and at worst makes unnecessary a Wikipedia article).
People aren't seeking a Wikipedia article just to have a Wikipedia article. All the WP:BLPREQDEL we get proves that much. They have a goal in mind that the Wikipedia article is a means toward. — Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 21:34, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
I think we can comfortably presume that people who are paying to have their company added to Wikipedia don't have a company that would end up in Wikipedia through the course of normal volunteer editing. At the very least, they should automatically be moved to draft to be vetted, and not at the top of the pile of drafts, either. BD2412 T 21:44, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
I agree with this. Draftifying all of them gets them off main namespace and removes them from robots indexing while also putting them in the AfC queue so an un-involved editor can examine it. The concern is how many UPE'ers are already inside AfC. Chris Troutman ( talk) 21:47, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
Both AfC and NPR are filled with the UPE'ers. ─ The Aafī on Mobile (talk) 21:56, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
Just a note that, in a recent RFC (on Village Pump I guess), WP:DRAFTIFY has a new 2d clause not allowing articles older than 90 days (and recent creation by inexperienced editor) for draftification - except thru AFD. That also has the 5a and 5b that deal with WP:COIEDIT — DaxServer ( t · m · c) 11:51, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
Not sure how 45 support and 46 oppose somehow became a 90 day draftification limit. In my opinion, this is another frustrating example of the wider community passing edicts that make the job of new page patrollers harder, without taking into account the complexity of the existing NPP workflow and the size of the NPP queue. – Novem Linguae ( talk) 20:20, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
At the very least, they should automatically be moved to draft to be vetted, and not at the top of the pile of drafts, either. The guideline WP:COI is kind of weak. It only says that COI/UPE should use the AFC process. This is sometimes circumvented by bad actors with moves back to mainspace or copy/paste moves. – Novem Linguae ( talk) 20:22, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
Note: NOINDEX only works in mainspace for 90 days. After that, MediaWiki ignores it and allows search engine indexing. – Novem Linguae ( talk) 19:53, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Seems like the fact that this was initially posted to ANI has muddied the waters a bit, but I don't see why we shouldn't deal with this like we always deal with UPE: block the accounts and tag the articles with {{ UPE}} until someone can check whether they need to be cleaned up or deleted. Moving to draft is just kicking the can down the road. –  Joe ( talk) 00:33, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
    Since this is multi-accounts UPE operation, can the accounts in question be checked for potential socks and sleeper accounts? – robertsky ( talk) 01:45, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Adding one more client of RankHawn;

Created by; User:Boyofjawad (blocked)
Included in RankHawn Client List: YES
ID's involved; User:GA99 (blocked) and User:Sonofstar
Current Status: The page is LIVE! - Hatchens ( talk) 04:00, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
robertsky; Aren't we taking this too much easy? How would one justify the usage of a CU because all the accounts may not necessarily be used by a single person, and there would necessarily be no behavioural similarities. The big UPE rings are aware of the "within Wikipedia" intricacies. An SPI clerk won't approve for a CU until they get on-wiki diffs that indicate any sort of similarities, and perhaps same sort of behaviour is needed under DUCK. This is much beyond. ─ The Aafī on Mobile (talk) 04:22, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
Hence the phrasing as a question. Thanks for the response, it is what I wanted to know. My thought was that these people may slip up despite knowing the intricacies of the norms on Wikipedia, and they may have accounts in good standing just waiting to be activated for their UPE operation. But agree on the current usage/limits on CU. May have to do some behavioral analysis to check for potential relations then. – robertsky ( talk) 09:54, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
I feel behaviour-check is difficult given the fact how these types of UPE rings work. They've their boys in the AfC and NPP. I was reading somewhere on the website that Hatchens reported above, that, they are all over the Wikipedia, and in fact good-standing in a nice way. Can't AfC/NPP reviewers of any of the articles that come from such rings be held accountable? This is something that has nothing to do with SPI's. What about those who hugely influence the AfD discussions? So much to do. ─ The Aafī on Mobile (talk) 10:08, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
@ TheAafi: Don't believe everything you read... we know that UPE outfits frequently lie about their standing on-wiki to dupe people into giving them money. There have been cases of UPErs/sockpuppets getting new page patrol rights (the criteria aren't particularly high), but I don't think it's a widespread problem. Most are not particularly savvy and get themselves blocked long before they even reach extended confirmed. But if you have specific accounts you are concerned about that aren't already blocked, by all means let's look at them. –  Joe ( talk) 10:36, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
UPE is in itself a good reason to suspect sockpoppetry and run a check. Many (most?) of the accounts above are already checkuser blocked. If there are any with more recent edits I can check for more socks but most seem to be stale by now. –  Joe ( talk) 10:31, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
Indeed yes. UPE and socking go together very well, if combined. There is a financial incentive, and their incomes, after all! Remember Orangemoody? We even have a mainspace on it - Orangemoody editing of Wikipedia — DaxServer ( t · m · c) 11:57, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Adding one more suspected client of RankHawn

Created by User:KNivedat (the same low-level ID has created Draft:PharmEasy, a client of RankHawn)
Included in RankHawn Client List: NO
ID's involved in editing further; User:Behind_the_mooor (blocked)
Today, there was an attempt to create a page for its founder via AfC route - Draft:Kunal Shah. An SPA was used; User:Pogochamp.
Current Status: The page is LIVE! - Hatchens ( talk) 15:52, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Umakant Bhalerao's possible socks

@ Joe Roe: I found some for a review. For the background, I wrote this report and my suspicions were right. This UPE ring operates a large number of accounts. My quest to discover more lead to another NPR right holder, Umakant Bhalerao ( talk · contribs). Their pattern is pretty much similar to DMySon (mostly reviews politician's articles, Uttar Pardesh geography, in between they review their own client's articles) and I won't be surprised if a usercheck confirms that. In any case, following accounts are most likely operated by them:

I think this is enough to file a SPI against these accounts (perhaps on GermanKity) and we need some sort of sysop action against Umakant Bhalerao (they've done enough damage already). Courtesy ping to @ MER-C:. I am notifying Umakant Bhalerao to join this discussion. Thanks. 117.215.247.207 ( talk) 18:20, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

I agree Wikibablu, Michael goms, Anthony Masc, Aaliyahshaikh01, and Pjjkn are all suspicious. MER-C 18:30, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
@ MER-C: the IDs are so smart that none of them have any inter-linking history popping at Editor Interaction Tool. If all these IDs turns out to be linked with GermanKity (I don't know how), then it will establish indirect link with MickyShy; which will eventually leads us back to RankHawn. Kindly note, there is also no inter-linking history between Germankity and MickyShy but, still the latter got blocked because being former's sockpuppet. As AafiOnMobile quoted above - "This is much beyond". - Hatchens ( talk) 06:07, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Dear IP, you are mistaken. I do not have a connection with any of the accounts you've mentioned above. Nor do I know GermanKity. You're more than welcome to file an SPI request. And secondly, this list is very short, I've marked many more articles as reviewed within minutes of their creation that doesn't mean those accounts belong to me.-- Umakant Bhalerao ( talk) 20:01, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

  • @ Hatchens: What is your take on Razorpay ( logs, draft logs) in which Umakant Bhalerao was involved (they draftified stating UPE and PROMO concerns). I don't see Razorpay on RankHawn website. Is there a connection or is this completely independent of this report? — DaxServer ( t · m · c) 09:35, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
    @ DaxServer First of all, I was surprised to hear Umakant Bhalerao's name come up in this discussion thread and equally surprised to find him performing controversial reviews of some articles (as mentioned above by the IP). However, I have worked with them, interacted with them, and discovered their reasoning to be explicit and exemplary. In fact, they are one of my go-to editors when I need a second opinion or recommend somebody for a review. And, when it comes to Razorpay, based on the logs, draft logs, they have shown us the exact level of knowledge and integrity as our community demands. Therefore, I hope they should come clean about their act. It's about trust. That's the only thing we can share with our fellow editors.
    Now, coming to the second question (and the important one), if you ask me how to connect with Razorpay with RankHawn; without the former getting mentioned on the latter's website? It's simple... by studying the edit history of the recently created Draft:Razorpay, which was created by Aviationhub on May 22, 2022 (i.e., today) and it's the same ID which did two mid-size edits on Draft:Bigbasket (RankHawn client) on May 16, 2022. They are also involved in editing other RankHawn client pages such as; Cred (company), and Tata 1mg (in the past two months). So it does establish a connection. And, we should not be surprised that Razorpay is RankHawn's new client because, in the past, their pages have been draftified n-number of times, and one of their reviewers DarjeelingTea and page movers JohnHGood41 are also blocked. But, I wonder about the audacity of this UPE gang to attempt a new page (for Razorpay) with an ID that can be duly linked back to this ongoing COIN investigation. It seems to be unprecedented and weird! - Hatchens ( talk) 11:27, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
    @ DaxServer we have just discovered the tip of the iceberg. And, we should be prepared for more such unwanted discoveries (like Razorpay). I would request you and others, please expand this investigation from your end, collate your discoveries over this thread. Collectively, we should take this as an opportunity to learn and decide the future course of action against these elements. - Hatchens ( talk) 11:39, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
    Thanks for your assessment! Looking at the contributions of Aviationhub ( talk · contribs), they are overwhelmingly within Indian politics. Diverging into companies is fairly recent (since February 2022) and only in the last ~100 edits out of ~930 total edits. Tho there might be an edit here and there in the past, they are pass and go and nothing major. If they are involved in WP:UPE, they must declare it. I'll leave an UPE declaration notice on their talk page. — DaxServer ( t · m · c) 12:01, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
    Hey guys Aviation Hub here
    I am just an average Indian student who has lots of free time and likes to edit it during the time. I dont get paid any sorts or what plus the draft i created and everything else were not done by me. They used to exist before in the razorpay page which has now been removed i just added it because i thought they were right if they arent mistaken me i am apoliogising and will never do that again and instead take it as a learning opportunity instead. I only write about startups fundraising and financial i only did this cause i thought the previous article was right I am sorry once again. I have no idea what is UPE and anything else too or what on earth a RankHawn is. Aviationhub ( talk) 16:15, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
    @ Aviationhub: Can I ask you why you working on the Draft:Bigbasket article and specifically put the products list back in (the exact same content) that I removed for being straight up promotional. That article has been in-out of draft numerous and deleted twice at Afd with a clear consensus to delete. Currently you look like a UPE. scope_creep Talk 17:35, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

What happens now?

The allegations against Hatchens and their subsequent block notwithstanding, a great deal of potential evidence has been presented about a serious set of allegations. Is the moving of this forward something that COIN handles, or does this move into areas that ordinary editors, perhaps ordinary admins, are not privileged to see?

That it withers on the vine does not seem to me to be an option. I see any discussion about Hatchens as a connected but separate topic. Those issues can be pursued separately.

If even part of the evidence presented above is true, and comments by very experienced editors such as MER-C seem to suggest a great deal of truth, it woudl be disappointimg if action just, well, stopped. 🇺🇦  FiddleTimtrent  FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 08:13, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes, it would be a real shame if this went nowhere. Perhaps the next step is to get some Checkuser evidence via an SPI? Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 10:54, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
I blocked Wikibablu. MER-C 10:38, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
A SPI has been filed by a "new" user: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/GermanKity. MER-C 15:05, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
@ MER-C I am unsure whether to be concerned about the newness of the filing editor. Any inappropriate conduct im that regard will all come out in due course. I am, however pleased that I can see "something" taking place, likely spurred on by this report.
I choose to imagine that wheels are turning behind the scenes for the most part, and hope my imagination is correct. 🇺🇦  FiddleTimtrent  FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 21:28, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

The SPI above has been closed due to lack of focus. MER-C 16:56, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Very suspicious account here they seemed to get on well with German Kitty and were obsessed with gaining draft review rights at some point. user:Suryabeej 2A01:4C8:8AA:CF87:884D:CB50:32AF:331C ( talk) 21:53, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Just an observation, but there's a bunch of editors that appear to have disappeared and stopped editing from the areas I mostly edit (NCORP-related AfDs). I can't help but think the UPE sock farm might have been a lot bigger than we suspected initially. Anyone else notice the same? HighKing ++ 20:51, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
Yes. I’ve noticed the exact same thing. 2A01:4C8:1C00:3884:A196:1239:C503:533 ( talk) 22:08, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
Please send me a list (don't post here, we don't want to notify). MER-C 06:28, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Oasis Christian Academy

Apparently an employee of the school. Creation and ownership of article, with an interest in promotional content. Most recent account hasn't responded to COI questions, and I'm assuming the original account is dormant. 2601:188:180:B8E0:0:0:0:4FAD ( talk) 15:02, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

My COI articles

Hello dear Enwiki users. In January I was disclosed my connections in trwiki, in the first five articles, I have COI as they are my family members. Also, I know FWBR's creator. I felt the need to write it again here as I want other editors to look at it. Kind regards, Kadı Message 14:59, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

@ Kadı: Thank you, we appreciate your disclosures. Just as an aside, I noticed on your userpage that you have separate {{ UserboxCOI}} templates for each article. You can actually put these all together into one, like so:
{{UserboxCOI|1=Kamil Tolon|2=Şefik Kamil Efes|3=Ercan Aktuna|4=Nilgün Efes|5=SS Frederica (1890)|6=Fancy Women Bike Ride}}
-- Drm310 🍁 ( talk) 19:47, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Oracle Intelligent Advisor

I believe this user has a conflict of interest that is undeclared based on the user's name and that they have only edited this article since the account's creation earlier today . SamWilson989 ( talk) 00:16, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Hello. My account was not created on 2 June 2022 (I've been active since June 2021 as you can see in the history of the account) and I've been editing this page for well over a year now. It was completely out of date and did not reflect the product. I do not work for Oracle Corporation (the company that sells the product), nor do I represent them in any way. Intelligentadvisoritconsulting ( talk) 00:22, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
undo"block" 2600:1700:B850:4EA0:9C88:F03D:DE3:430 ( talk) 20:11, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
My edits (which you can view in the history of course) remove dead links, update links, correct errors and out-of-date product names, add information that was missing about versions of the product that were introduced since the last edit and other basic housekeeping since nobody else was editing the page. Intelligentadvisoritconsulting ( talk) 00:32, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for commenting. I realise now I should have asked you on your talk page first. I was too rash. I apologise. Happy to rescind this note to the admins, but I assume an admin needs to close this discussion first. SamWilson989 ( talk) 00:34, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
Reported the user name to WP:UAA. It seems "Intelligentadvisoritconsulting" is from [3], so promo account. scope_creep Talk 20:40, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Question about whether being a former member of a religion counts as a COI

Uh... I'm the subject of the discussion so I think I don't have to use {{ coin-notice}}. I had a question because I made some edits earlier, mostly fixing typos and adding commas but two in regards to content [4] [5]. It occurred to me after the fact that this might violate the spirit of WP:COI. Anyways, I came here to seek clarification. I reread COI and it doesn't really specifically mention a situation like mine. At least I don't think so? The language at WP:EXTERNALREL is vague enough and includes religion as a potential COI, so I'm seeking clarification. I got the impression that was more about advocacy, but biases aren't nessecarily positive. I will say that even though I don't agree with my former religious beliefs (I like being able to vote and donate blood and supporting the rights of LGBT+ people), I don't feel any particular hatred for members of the religion. I think religious freedom is important. But if my edits are considered a conflict of interest, should I just revert myself and stay away from the topic of Jehovah's Witnesses in general? If people here think I should do so, I'll do so voluntarily. Clovermoss (talk) 12:52, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

I don't think this is a COI issue so much as a personal issue for you as to if you think you can edit with a neutral point of view and set your views aside. I don't think merely having been an adherent to a religion gives one a COI, unless you were a clergyperson or had some involvement in the religion itself. If you would like others to act as a check on you to make sure you are setting your views aside enough, you could make edit requests. 331dot ( talk) 13:01, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
@ 331dot: I'm a woman, so no. I wasn't ever part of what could be considered a clergy-person because that's impossible. Everyone is involved in the religion to some extent though, I was raised going door-do-door because that's a vital aspect of the religious beliefs. The main reason I might have a COI is the whole obligatory shunning everyone who leaves thing.
Regardless, I wouldn't mind having a second set of eyes from others on my edits. Edit requests to existing articles seem like a good idea. What about if I wanted to try writing an article about Lamb v. Benoit? It's notable because it's a case that was heard by the Supreme Court of Canada, but I get why I maybe shouldn't directly create it in mainspace, if at all. I usually draft articles first so I could submit it through AfC instead of moving it directly to mainspace. Clovermoss (talk) 13:12, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
This article about Jehovah's Witnesses congregational discipline might be useful for background to understand what I meant in the previous comment about what I just said in regards to the "obligatory shunning everyone who leaves thing". In regards to the redlinked article, I feel like I could write about that neutrally, but maybe it's best if I avoid it. I was giving it more as a hypothetical example of how I should approach a certain situation. If that's not something I should do, I'm fine with making edit requests for existing articles. Clovermoss (talk) 13:55, 5 June 2022 (UTC), edited 13:58, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Being a member of a religion, current or former, is 100% not a COI. The key word is "interest", which in this case means something to gain or lose (like a financial interest, or a political interest), not in the sense of "I'm interested in it." Members of a religion don't have an "interest" (in the gain/loss sense of the word) in the religion just by being members (unless you want to be real cynical and say they have an interest in getting into heaven). If you're being paid by a church, or you're a politician running for office and seeking the endorsement of a church-affiliated group, then you might have an "interest" (in the church, I'd argue, not the entire religion). But a COI isn't borne from a belief for/against something, it's borne from a relationship with something where the relationship gives you a benefit (like getting paid) and that benefit might make you less than objective when it comes to editing.

A separate issue is bias. You may or may not have a bias in favor of or against some organization you were a part of, or a religion, or your favorite movie star, or anything else. If your biases prevent you from editing neutrally, well, then it's best not to edit it. I have no idea if that's the case here, but if you're editing a page that's watchlisted by someone else, presumably they'd let you know if there were problems.

I'd caution against using edit requests as a matter of course merely because you have a prior connection to the subject matter. Edit requests make work for other people and that effort may be better spent elsewhere. You're probably fine to just edit directly. If some edit is particularly controversial or problematic, maybe submit those as edit requests. You could voluntarily submit new articles to AFC if you wanted to get a second set of eyes on it before publishing. But you can always just ask someone to read your work when it's done and see if there are any problems (I'd be happy to volunteer though someone more knowledgeable about the subject matter would probably be better)... this will give you the second set of eyes but be less cumbersome than edit requests or AfC.

You're an experienced editor so I wouldn't worry too much about it; if anything you're probably being overly cautious rather than under cautious, which is part of what makes you a good editor. Levivich 14:01, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment, Levivich. I'd say the thing about bias is likely the best thing to keep in mind. The aspect of edit requests creating work for someone else for edits that are probably fine is something I didn't really think about. I still feel like being cautious for new articles is a good idea. Also, just being cautious in general. Thank you for your offer to be a second set of eyes. Clovermoss (talk) 14:25, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
I did start a draft at Draft:Lamb v. Benoit if anyone wants to take a look. Clovermoss (talk) 18:58, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
COI is designed to address situations where someone has a direct personal interest. For example, if you are the topic of an article or own or work for a company that is a topic of an article, then you have a COI. Individual bias is a separate issue. It is expected that we will put our biases aside when editing articles. TFD ( talk) 19:23, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Ahmad Fawzi

A long-standing suspicion of undeclared COI (the article was written in 2015), based on several red flags:

  • Single-purpose account: the user that created the article has only (with the exception of 4 edits) contributed to this article thoughout its existance.
  • Tone the tone of the article is quite "PR puffery" and reads like a typical UN-format CV.
  • Subject it seems rather strange that a new user decides to start (and end) its Wikipedia experience by creating the page of a rather obscure UN bureaucrat unknown to the general public.
  • Timing: the article was created in October 2015, just 2 months after the person described in the article received quite some negative publicity following the scandal of an unpaid UN intern that was sleeping in a tent and Mr Fawzi held a press conference (shown also in a documentary on the subject: https://vimeo.com/ondemand/callmeintern) where he made questionable remarks about young people working in his office as well as statements on the existence of a UN General Assembly resolution that later turned out to be false.
  • Editing modality: most of the article's content was added as a single, large edit ( [6]), suggesting some pre-written text was provided.
  • Information not publicly available. The sentence on the marriage status, daughters and languages spoken by the subject of the article do not appear to be in public domain, and are in fact not sourced. They are however common on UN official bios, suggesting that the editor was provided access to UN bio notes by internal sources, possibly the subject of the article himself or somebody from his office. A number of sources link up to documents stored on some google drive, including official letters of thanks, which are clearly private documents, not publicly available: another red flag that the editor may have personal connections with the subject of the article.
  • Type of sources: in connection to the above point, the user, in one of its first edits, indicates he has "supporting evidence in PDF files" about the subject of the article, once again pointing to the possibility he may have been emailed documents by the commissioning entity in order to be used to create the article.
  • Uploading of images: the editor, after posting images downloaded from the internet - later removed for copyright infringement - has then uploaded UN copyrighted images not publicly available on the internet, which raised the suspicion that the images had been received by the user from an internal UN source, possibly linked to the person subject of the article. Following the removal of those images too (see here, here and here) the user only recently claimed those images were available in public domain. While only one of the images claimed appears to actually be in public domain, I do recall however this was not the case when these images were nominated for deletion, and a quick search via the Wayback Machine shows there are no archived copies of the images now in public domain pre-dating May 2022 (while it was added by the editor in 2015): see here. Equally suspicious is the fact that - unlike the other photos released on Flickr by the UN Geneva account - only the 2 indicated by the editor have a public domain licence, suggesting a potential link or affiliation between the editor and staff in the UN Geneva account (run by the information service, incidentally the office previously directed by the subject of the article).
  • Possible personal contacts: the editor has voluntarily shared his linkedin profile, which shows he is based in the same city where the subject of the article resides and works for the past few years.
  • Shared concerns: suspicion on potential COI have been expressed by a number of users here and here.

Desyman ( talk) 20:32, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Did you mean Ahmad Fawzi? PRAXIDICAE💕 20:36, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
I have been through the article Ahmad Fawzi and removed content that was fairly resume-like and was not verified by the sources cited. There may be enough left to meet WP:GNG, and there may be more available elsewhere that can be properly sourced, but it certainly read to me like a PR piece. Melcous ( talk) 01:27, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
@ Praxidicae: Oh gosh, so sorry about the misspelling, of corse you're right :) I have corrected it!
Thanks @ Melcous: for the "purge" of non verifiable materials, the fact that private letters linked via google drive were used seems to me yet another red flag that this is a commissioned article. I am not so sure the notability is sufficient for this person (usually we do not have bios of mid-rank public officials not famous for other events), but that's probably for another discussion. In my view there are plenty of pointers here that suggest an undeclared COI/commissioned article.-- Desyman ( talk) 12:21, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Culver City Police Department

IP has been consistently adding unreferenced information to this article since yesterday, and its ISP appears to be the Culver City Police Department. Two warnings have been given on its talk page by other editors, and all of its edits have been reverted. Augusthorsesdroppings10 ( talk) 19:16, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Singapore Art Museum

User's only edits are to that article, and his username looks like the article's. Viewer719 Talk!/ Contribs! 09:03, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

They've been blocked by 331dot. Just a suggestion for Viewer719, if the username is identical (or reasonably close to) the name of a real-life organization that the user is writing about, then they can be reported to WP:UAA. The username policy forbids accounts from representing organizations or groups of people. -- Drm310 🍁 ( talk) 15:00, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Wave Accelerated Ring Pinch Reactor

The subject editor was given a standard conflict of interest notice and responded without addressing the question of conflict of interest. They then bludgeoned the deletion discussion, and are now bludgeoning the DRV. Robert McClenon ( talk) 19:58, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Herman Otten

Non-notable page created by SPA, User:Karemsingh. It seems likely they are connected to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hammad Chaudhry/Archive (blocked UPE) as Sabel Naveen was working on thier sandbox, User:Sabel Naveen/sandbox when they recieved a block. Most of the sources are trivial, so if kept we have to clean-up the promotional edits. User:Oetmon and User:Jason586 edits are also suspicious. User:Oetmon is likely connected as they have edited their Dutch language page [7]. Thank you. 2A02:8108:4CBF:AE80:F875:1E6D:E013:D624 ( talk) 09:40, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

and you are? Note for others, this is also at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2022 June 7. Star Mississippi 17:50, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
Another note for others: Herman Otten (actor) was nominated for deletion once at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Herman Otten (actor), which was closed by Star Mississippi as No Consensus, and with a note that there was the smell of sockpuppetry. It was then nominated for deletion again, this time by an experienced editor, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Herman Otten (actor) (2nd nomination). This may be a case of good hand, bad hand, or a slow-motion gunfight between sock farms. Wikipedia does not permit us to kill them all and let Jimbo Wales sort them out. Robert McClenon ( talk) 04:53, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Dilara Fındıkoğlu

Palaangelino is a Turkish Wikipedia user, and one year ago he was banned for his undisclosed paid contributions. 3 days ago I nominated Dilara Fındıkoğlu for deletion and he commented on the AfD. He continues hiding his connections etc. Also, he attacked to me on the AfD. I request sysops to get involved in the incident. Regards, Kadı Message 05:07, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

[8] PR contributions in WD. Kadı Message 05:10, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
First of all, I'm not a Turkish Wiki contributor cose of you all Turkish community that explains why TR Wiki was closed for years. Secondly, what are my connections? Non-sense complaint. I defend myself and my contributions cose Kadı requested spam deletion for my article for dilara and then all my wikidata items in just 20 mins. I request sending this user back to Wiki TR. Palaangelino ( talk) 07:04, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
Keep trying Kadı, not today ser :) Palaangelino ( talk) 07:06, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
Last warning: Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Kadı Message 08:12, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
Yup, that's awesome you finally linked this here. I know you and so I was waiting for it. Now click the link and check it again, if it's personal attack or not that requesting deletion for every single item and an article of a user in minutes. How did you come, do research and decide all of my contributions are paid/PR/not notable in just minutes? How is that possible? Such personalized actions. Let's just make sense and stop this personal non-sense. Last words: Wikipedia:AVOIDYOU :) Palaangelino ( talk) 10:11, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
I do not know you in real life, so I can not have a personal problem with you. When the items are examined, it can be easily understood that they are created for PR and promotional purposes. Your accusation of sock puppetry and your writing style match those of the advertisers I've encountered. @ Vincent Vega also banned you, remember please. The items are going to be deleted in order to build a valuable online encyclopedia. Before you start contributing here, you need to understand Wikipedia's philosophy. This is my last reply. Kadı Message 10:22, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
You're so funny saying "you don't know me in real life" then ending with "before you start contributing here, you need to understand Wikipedia's philosophy" like you already know me. I know you very well, and I know you know me. You know my issue with TR Wiki that happened a year ago. A huge year and still chasing me. How don't you know me? It feels like whole TR Wiki talks about me. I'm being honest here. It was just TR Wiki issue and we all know how poor TR Wiki is, like how modern-illiterate the community is, needs how much more improvement in general - so Vincent and your other friends didn't tell you that they didn't even listen to me and my reasons - just straight banned me and also my friend with false accusations. Such a shame. These words explain TR Wiki so well: "Your accusation of sock puppetry and your writing style match those of the advertisers I've encountered" like y'all sitting online to just catch PR pokemons all day until you die. Also saying "when the items are examined" like you really examined them. If you examined enough, how it took only couple minutes to request deletion for that many items? You must be a compute bot or something. Please stop this personal non-sense and continue your Turkish PR pokemon catching activity. Have fun with your life. :) Palaangelino ( talk) 10:58, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Well, Kadı might not know you, but I do, and still remember how much of a headache you were back then. The user in question has been indef blocked on trwiki for paid editing. The evidence was found and reviewed by three admins (Courtesy ping Vincent Vega, Uncitoyen, Elmacenderesi), who in the end concluded that there was an obvious violation of the T&C. See the discussion there. I'm not going to comment much on off-wiki evidence I haven't seen myself, but if three experienced admins say something, that stuff is likely to be true. Less than two months after the block, the user proceeds to create this article on enwiki.
I'm going to only judge based on what I have seen myself. The only article created by Palaangelino on enwiki is Dilara Fındıkoğlu, which reads more like a press release in itself rather than a encyclopedia entry: "Since then, [...] are some of the names that have dressed her creations in red carpets and stages."
Most images uploaded by Palaangelino on Wikimedia Commons have "press photo" in their titles. This file depicting AYDEED, the subject of the article that resulted in his trwiki block, is taken from her own website and has OTRS/VRT permission, which means that he was at least in contact with them.
tr:Hair of İstanbul was created by Seyit12. Seyit12 is also indefinitely blocked for the same reason: undisclosed paid editing. Seyit12's case was quite a bit obvious, as he had been blocked for the exact same reason on the English Wikipedia a few months prior, and is now globally locked.
Why do I bring this up? Because Palaangelino created now-deleted item Q108462152 on Wikidata, which according to the deleting admin was also about Hair of İstanbul. To me, this says that Palaangelino is either the same person as Seyit12, is a part of his team, or offers a similar service as Seyit12, which in all instances means that he is also involved in paid editing. Some of his items at Wikidata have been created on trwiki by SPA's, and are now deleted. Seni seçtim Pokemon. ~Styyx Talk? 10:33, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
I requested CU. Thanks @ Styyx. Kadı Message 13:03, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
  • So I'm currently looking at Draft:Yasin Hacıoğlu, which is also recently created by a possible UPE. When I look at Wikidata item, Q106672382, I see that this has also been created by Palaangelino over a year ago. Every line we take just connects to an increase in suspicion. I think we are having too many coincidences here to still believe in AGF; Palaangelino himself is an UPE. ~Styyx Talk? 12:25, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
In regards to that draft, I suspected a COI campaign to create the article in question, because there are multiple users (I count 4) involved. MarioJump83 ( talk) 09:35, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Aniruddha Jatkar

The editor has been adding 4000-5000 bytes of very promotional content here much of which is unreferenced which I have removed but he has partly reverted, added extra promotional content here and also removed the templates for blp sources and advertisement here. Then I reverted again here with a warning on his talkpage here but I don't want to get in an edit war. With this edit summary here he implies that he is editing on behalf of the subject of the article, Atlantic306 ( talk) 18:30, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Added a second WP:SPA that has only edited this article, concurrently with the first one. The article also has a history of undisclosed paid and WP:SOCK editors. -- Drm310 🍁 ( talk) 21:20, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
Hello, added references from reliable sources to the Achievements section which was removed. Do not understand why the whole section was still removed. Please help out here AnuragIC ( talk) 06:46, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Editor AnuragIC seems to have coi or is perhaps a UPE. scope_creep Talk 10:26, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Swiss School of Business Research

This user has in the past years only edited the [Swiss School of Business Research] page as well as related pages. It appears to me that they try to make the school look as good as possible, and are spreading misinformation about its accreditation. The user consistently aims to add information that the school is accredited by [Swiss quality label for further education institutions], which does not accredit nor deal with higher education. The user is also trying to remove this school from the list of unaccredited Swiss higher education institutions.

My worry is that this user has a conflict of interest. Another user, [User:ViRajPty] was notified of a potential conflict of interest and has said there is none, and they have engaged in talk page discussions. Historyman66 has never responded to talk page discussions nor to my notifying them of the potential COI on their own talkpage.

I would like to add an IP adress to this potential situation, as several edits containing the same misinformation were committed by users not logged in.

Functionist ( talk) 09:37, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

I was directed here via AfD, where the Swiss School of Business Research is up for deletion for the second time. There have been a lot of copyvios, all of which have been revdel'd from the AfD version, but there's now another version in Historyman's sandbox with extant copyvios. It's pretty clear to me that they're not really getting the memo. Iseult Δx parlez moi 14:11, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
The article has now been deleted so I imagine this conflict of interest is no longer really relevant. But we will see. Functionist ( talk) 08:51, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Azeus Systems Holdings Ltd.

Author has declared a COI on their user page, but keeps putting these two spam articles in the mainspace instead of using WP:AFC or in general letting someone uninvolved decide upon them. The articles are filled with primary sources and peacock or promo speech. Fram ( talk) 07:27, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Edit warring, removing AFC templates and not listening to anyone = blocked. SmartSE ( talk) 15:53, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
Thanks. Fram ( talk) 15:55, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

AAR Corp

This editor has repeatedly been instructed to comply with WP:COI and stop adding puffery and advertisements to the article, yet the editor continues to defy WP:COI. Earlier today, the editor literally added a video advertisement to the article. [9] The editor also appears to have added a radio advertisement about how wonderful it is to work at the company. The editor's behavior has been on-going for more than a year. Thenightaway ( talk) 15:30, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Link to previous COIN discussion from April 2021: /Archive 171#AAR_Corp (again) -- Drm310 🍁 ( talk) 16:13, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Walker Corporation and Hattie124

Hattie124 is a user who is, by their own admission, an employee of Walker Corporation and is trying to bring the article up to date. The problem is that their definition of "up-to-date" includes extensive lists of projects, an issue that plagues the article even without his edits, and while I am sympathetic to some of their goals they've gone about it in a less-than-ideal way, making the article somewhat worse on the promotion-by-overdetail front than it already is. — Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 06:08, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi Jeske Couriano. I appreciate you taking the time to provide feedback. Could you please expand on what the specific issues are so that I can fix them. The extensive list of projects are factually correct as they are all Walker Corporation projects - therefore, could you please explain why this would plague the article as it is factually correct and the alternative you suggest? Additionally, when you state "gone about it in a less-than-ideal way", could you please advise the better way to approach this? I have attempted speaking to Wikipedia help chats to try and improve the page and ensure we are abiding by all guides, however, I am not getting any responses - so it would be really beneficial if you could please guide me in the right direction. Thank you. Hattie124 ( talk) 06:19, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
The main issue is promotion by overdetail, with a secondary one being disclosure. With respect to the former, we're not interested in exhaustive lists of everything a subject has ever done - only the most relevant/important work, as determined by press coverage of those projects. I actually did respond to you, albeit belatedly, both times you were in -en-help to try and raise the issues and discuss them. For the latter, you need to disclose your employment on your userpage, not on the article proper.
The best way to go about getting changes made is to request edits be made on the article talk page given your conflict-of-interest, not to make the edits yourself. — Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 06:36, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
Hi Jeske, thank you for your reply. I will do the above you have suggested. In regards to the messages you sent me, where can I find these? As I have checked my inbox and cannot see anything? Thank you. Hattie124 ( talk) 07:13, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Immanuel’s High School Trinidad and Tobago

MER-C ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who typically does an excellent job with quarantining horribly written promotional pieces, not only draftified Draft:Immanuel’s High School Trinidad and Tobago but also tagged the draft as undisclosed paid and even blocked the editor. The strange thing is that nothing about this draft or the page creator (who is now blocked) looks spammy or promotional. Usually we can easily tell apart undisclosed paid editing with all those perfectly formatted new articles about so-called serial entrepreneurs and financial startups created by SPAs, but I am very surprised that a school like this could be undisclosed paid-for spam.

I have asked @ MER-C: at User talk:MER-C#High school article, and he replied, "It's a private school which felt the need to promote itself in those references." To me, this is not enough of a justification. The presence of 3-4 cheap paid "fake news" or PR sites does not necessarily mean that the Wikipedia draft itself is necessarily paid-for spam, since it could be equally, if not more, possible that a random student or teacher at the school had created an inadequately referenced draft and had gotten those references from Google searches. We can tag it as not having enough references or not meeting WP:NSCHOOL, but why the block and undisclosed paid tag without any explanation to the community whatsoever? MER-C does not like to spill the beans, which is something you can't do all the time when dealing with spammers, but doing this to a school stub, which I see as being more similar to geographical location stubs, should require some plausible explanations.

In any case, I'm just a random uninvolved lurker who is wondering why this could happen. I could care less about this school itself, but what concerns me is that does this mean that any random amateur editor could potentially get blocked and have his content deleted or draftified simply for accidentally using the wrong sources from Google while creating a stub about a random neighborhood school? Also, I'm not accusing MER-C of doing this, but this could theoretically happen if something had happened off-wiki between the admin and the page creator or the subject of the article, or in other words, "the tip of the iceberg" of some kind of off-wiki drama. Skokesquak ( talk) 22:45, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

The sources in that draft are really weak, half the content is an uncited list of past principals and "notable" students none of whom are blue links, and you are the only WP:SPA in the conversation. You've come here to announce your own CoI? In the bad old days this would be enough for a CU check. Chris Troutman ( talk) 22:56, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
@ Skokesquak: So you're a "random, uninvolved lurker" who just happened to stumble across the existence of this article/draft? And you seem to be keenly aware of MER-C's excellent track record and reputation, and Wikipedia nomenclature... despite your account being only two days old, and having no edits other than to MER-C's talk page and this one? Maybe you were an IP editor with a more extensive edit history and experience, but it's impossible for us to know if that's true. Anyway, this seems like a pretty spurious accusation to me, and attempt to create drama where none exists. This has the scent of either WP:SOCK or WP:MEAT. -- Drm310 🍁 ( talk) 15:39, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
The WP:DUCK on this one is off the Quack-O-Meter. BubbaJoe123456 ( talk) 21:33, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
Maybe the OP is a sock. I do not know. I am curious about how MER-C concluded that a school that closed down 50 years ago felt the need to promote itself in those references. How could this defunct school pay anyone to write a Wikipedia article? That simply does not add up. Cullen328 ( talk) 21:56, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
I recognise that article as been on Wikipedia before, under a slightly different name. Looking at, it's not the school itself, it is the list of names that are important. Somebody on that list, wants to be on Wikipedia but doesn't have an article, that is why the list is so prominently displayed. scope_creep Talk 23:05, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
That someone paid for those "articles" used as "references" too. MER-C 03:01, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
Well they are dated as brand new. There is many digitial agencies that would creates these these types of articles, for not a lot of money, anywhere. They are not articles in the true sense, nor PR or clickbait. These seem to be these types of non-articles that are seo orientated, essentially a framework article, to drive to traffic to the site and promote the site in Google. It black-hat seo but it is also bog standard digital advertising now. They are intellectually empty. One of them is a press-release from Comtex an aggregation site. They collect them and run analytics and ml on them, to extract business intelligence. I wouldn't be suprised if these articles were just created for a few hundred quid, last week. scope_creep Talk 08:23, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
Discussion moved to WP:AN. Skokesquak ( talk) 21:38, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Regardless of who is asking, this is a legitimate question as Cullen328 has pointed out. You can do whatever you want with a CU or SPI, but I don't care because that's not the point.

This school shut down 50 years. There were four references and they weren't very good. Typically the proper administrative procedure is this: Draftify, warn, remove references. But for this school, there was no explanation whatsoever about why creating a stub about a defunct school warranted a block. This could spook other good-faith users who are creating minimally referenced stubs about defunct schools.

Question:

  • Why this article in particular? There are perhaps dozens of stubs about defunct schools popping up every week, often with poor referencing. Why is this particular school subject to such unusually harsh measures?

Skokesquak ( talk) 21:25, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

@ Skokesquak: lol. This reminds me of the time someone accused me/ Wikipedia of favoring some boating manufacturers over others; as if. When the community points to facts indicative of nefarious purposes and the first thing you do is side-step the question, then you are almost certainly guilty. Please tell us who your client is. Chris Troutman ( talk) 21:37, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
Blocked already. Quick work by @ Bbb23:. Good on you. scope_creep Talk 21:46, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Lil Smoky

User claims to be an amateur rapper, is posting blatantly promotional stuff on their user page, user talk page, and their draft at Draft:Lil Smoky which has been nominated for deletion. He has also promoted himself in mainspace articles such as [10] and [11]. (Redacted)... ( JayPlaysStuff | talk to me | What I've been up to) 00:26, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Oxygen

Over the last few years, a single editor has edited a large number (~60) of science articles to state as fact the controversial claims made in his (AGF; the user account identifies openly as the researcher in question) peer-reviewed published papers.

Diff for the Oxygen article.

Since these mostly concern the chemical properties of oxygen, I have attempted to discuss this with him on the Talk:Oxygen page, which links to a number of other venues in which discussion has happened.

(I believed (and believe) these claims to constitute pseudoscience and a fringe theory, and to be " not even wrong". However, there is no consensus supporting my views in this matter on the WP:FTN. I would have preferred a simple resolution based on the fringe theory guidelines, which is why I hesitated to use WP:COIN.)

Attempts at engaging with this author using the ordinary dispute resolution mechanism have come to an impasse: he insists on language that is unacceptable to me and does not address my concerns.

I believe this is evident from his latest response: [12] (please note that I dispute his contention that recent edits were in keeping with any kind of consensus we have reached).

An RfC on Talk:Oxygen has established that his claims are indeed, at best, controversial, with two strong statements of opposition to the inclusion of his claims. There was no discussion of these claims prior to inclusion that I am aware of. I feel that, at this point, WP:COIN involvement is no longer a "trump card" to prematurely end the dispute, but merely a method of arriving at the foregone conclusion a little sooner, and to conserve everyone's resources.

As stated initially, this concerns a large number of articles. I'm willing to provide diff links or other documentation for the others, if it helps at all.

Note that this does not concern the very good (IMHO) copyediting work done by this editor, his contributions to established science, or his prizes and achievements.

On a more general note, I think it would make sense to clarify whether reporting COI editors to WP:COIN is a responsibility, a suggestion, or merely an option for editors who become aware of them. My understanding, and the reason I'm writing this, is that it is a strong suggestion.

IpseCustos ( talk) 19:50, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

This is a pretty clear cut case - this paper is WP:FRINGE as is evident from only a cursory glance at the title and the fringe theory noticeboard agrees. It is problematic that Klaus Schmidt-Rohr has been adding it to numerous articles, even if it was done in good faith. Whilst it has been cited by other researchers, from looking through their titles, it doesn't appear as if the "Fundamental Corrections to Traditional Bioenergetics" have been accepted by the scientific community. It's currently cited 41 times all of which probably need removing. SmartSE ( talk) 14:43, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
There's a list at User:IpseCustos containing the above-mentioned ~60 articles (for the high-energy oxygen claim) and ~20 more citing the fringe papers. IpseCustos ( talk) 14:45, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
I'll take it out, of the 41, starting now. scope_creep Talk 20:19, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
Done one by reversion, but looking at the rest seem to be custom work on each article. scope_creep Talk 20:28, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
Is it okay if I tackle some of them, or would it be preferred for someone else to do this? If it's the former, is there a template for the edit summary that it would be advisable to use? IpseCustos ( talk) 20:59, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
No, please go ahead. I did notice the paper was added to a lot of articles around mid-2020, so it is well embedded.Edit summary, I would put something like "Restore. Oxygen paper removed... WP:FRINGE Please see the Coin discussion". Some combo thereof would be good. scope_creep Talk 22:12, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
@ Scope creep: Yeah I did a couple yesterday but they do take a while to work out what needs removing - no simple reverts AFAICT. @ IpseCustos: Please do and you can use an edit summary like "rm WP:FRINGE / WP:REFSPAM - see Special:Diff/1093097666" - that's to my post above, but choose a different one if you like. SmartSE ( talk) 11:27, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
@ SmartSE: That looks like a pro edit summary to me and ideal. Ignore mine. I had to withdraw when I saw the complexity of the embedding. It is really outside my knowledge domain unfortunately. Even the one I reverted was slight wrong so I'm better out of it, which has since been fixed by @ IpseCustos:. A start has made, which is good. scope_creep Talk 13:12, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
Oh. Sorry I'm only seeing this now, since I used a link to WP:COIN rather than a permalink to the diff.
Anyway, I started removing the problematic claims and references, making sure not to mark my edits as minor.
@ Klaus Schmidt-Rohr: you have reverted at least one of these changes (just once) and asked others to weigh in here. I've stopped reverting these changes for now, but would like to resume doing so. It seems crystal clear to me that the original edits were in violation of Wikipedia policies and reverting them now is a legitimate course of action. Do you disagree? IpseCustos ( talk) 13:43, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
@ IpseCustos: Can you please do the rest. scope_creep Talk 10:11, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
Done, I think, as far as ref spamming is concerned. I'll have to do a few more searches to make sure I didn't miss any fringiness. Let me know if you see anything I've overlooked. IpseCustos ( talk) 11:14, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
Or at least I thought I was done. More instances keep popping up. At some point it might make sense to go through Klaus Schmidt-Rohr's contributions directly rather than just searching Wikipedia for suspicious phrases, but I don't want to violate WP:HOUND. IpseCustos ( talk) 21:11, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
@ IpseCustos: That doesn't apply here. Its not the correct context for it to apply. The paper must be removed. Its not scientific consensus. If you can find more instances, please remove them. And, thanks for doing the work. scope_creep Talk 22:01, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
Okay, I went through the contributions. Things are fixed for now, but I may come back asking for help if and when the removals are reverted. Thank you both for your help! IpseCustos ( talk) 13:46, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
@ IpseCustos: Thats coolio. Good work. Hopefully they are not reverted. If you see it, please revert and point them to this conversation. Great work. scope_creep Talk 15:43, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Cassava Sciences

This company has been accused of falsifying some data about their Alzheimer's drug which is currently being trialed. It's been pointed out on twitter that 71.41.248.226 is registered to Cassava Sciences (under their previous name of Pain Therapeutics Inc) and they have been making dubious edits to Simufilam and to Lindsay Burns, a Senior Vice Principal of the company, without disclosing their COI even after being warned about the need to a month ago. There are also a lot of similar edits by this IP range. Both articles could do with more experienced eyes to check that they are neutral, verifiable and also compliant with biographical and medical sourcing requirements. SmartSE ( talk) 12:37, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

What a coincidence--there has been a section added June 14th on Cassava by a new editor in the The Journal of Neuroscience article which Tryptofish and I have flagged as of undue weight. --{{u| Mark viking}} { Talk} 20:19, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping. I don't have much to add about the J. Neurosci. page, except that it strikes me that the editing was done by a new editor whose only contributions so far have been to the Journal page and the Cassava Sciences page, and the edits have had a strongly anti-Cassava POV. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 20:25, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
@ Tryptofish and Mark viking: Yes there are definitely some SPAs on the other side as well. I've removed that section as I agree it was undue. SmartSE ( talk) 10:54, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
It sounds like it'd be worth taking several of these pages to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. A month of semi-protection, maybe? Or is there some particular day (e.g., planned IPO, expected regulatory announcements?) that anyone could suggest? WhatamIdoing ( talk) 03:04, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

How to Edit your Law Firm’s Wikipedia Page: 3 Golden Rules

For the interested. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 12:59, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

This is a topic in which I have some interest--and I clicked with trepidation. I was happy to see the advice given is actually pretty good! Will wonders never cease? Dumuzid ( talk) 13:13, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
Not bad at all. I bet they edit regularly. - Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 13:18, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
It was pretty non-dark-arts, wasn't it? Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 13:20, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
She has an exaggerated idea, though, of how much we give a darn that a firm represents a particular client. -- Orange Mike | Talk 15:16, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Singapore FinTech Festival

Two accounts closely linked to the FinTech scene in Singapore. Kwansss is a WP:SPA to the Singapore FinTech Festival, by which they made all their edits on a single day in 2020 and went stale. The article was created by Eesan1969. Sopnendu Mohanty is a "fintech professional" closely linked to STF, an article also created by Eesan1969. Multiple users or IPs over time ( 1, 2, 3, 4, etc), who had placed tags of paid or promotional editing in these articles has resulted in constant defensive removals including making threats to they will "report at ANI next time" by the same user who made these articles, Eesan1969. Also note that the photo on the Sopnendu Mohanty article was uploaded by Eesan1969 themselves, including as being the copyright holder. In fact they did this today, after the previous image which was uploaded by an account that only uploaded that very image, was tagged as a copyright violation. Also, all of Eesan1969's uploads on the Wikimedia Commons is connected to the STF, with photos taken by them at the event. 119.202.99.133 ( talk) 15:37, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

I am not based in Singapore. I am part of a fintech society and attended Singapore FinTech Festival in 2018, that's all my connection with Singapore FinTech Festival ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and Sopnendu Mohanty ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and other. My real world identy is known by Wikimedia Commons Administrators. Kwansss ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and a few other accounts belong to my colleagues from the socity and created experimentaly with my assistance. I started to contribute Wikipedia much earlier. Eesan1969 ( talk) 15:55, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

SpaceX tourists

Isaacman has contracted SpaceX for a vanity space tourism operation in which he is described as a "mission commander" and the occupants of the fully automated capsules are described as astronauts. I opened a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spaceflight#Are space tourists astronauts? Are they flying "missions"? on how Wikipedia is describing this, I would appreciate if more editors chip in there. I am concerned by Xpenz's edits who has been adding the astronaut designation to these tourists for quite some time ( [13], [14]).-- StellarNerd ( talk) 20:00, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

This is not correct, all of these people you mentioned all received FAA Commercial Human Spaceflight Recognition wings, witch allows them the commercial astronaut title. However this ended in late 2021. And all none government employed people who reached space and orbit cannot be called commercial astronaut anymore. Axiom Mission 1 is a mission that took place after 2021 and none of these people are called commercial astronaut, I all labeled them as Space tourists. Same goes with Blue Origin NS-20 and Blue Origin NS-21 Xpenz ( talk) 20:21, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
@ StellarNerd: What has this got to do with conflict of interest? Unless Xpenz is being paid by some of the space tourists or works for SpaceX, this isn't the right forum for discussing it. SmartSE ( talk) 15:46, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
The very promotional framing of these people and narrow focus on these people and company. -- StellarNerd ( talk) 19:32, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Frank E. Holmes

The article Frank E. Holmes contains multiple edits from the same three users indicating a potential wp:COI. A user interaction analysis reveals very close overlap in edits for Jguyer, Jetsflyhigh and user:Badgerta. See: https://sigma.toolforge.org/editorinteract.py?users=Jetsflyhigh&users=Jguyer&users=Badgerta&startdate=&enddate=&ns=&server=enwiki) The article itself seems extremely self-promotional. Volcom95 ( talk) 03:30, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Volcom95, Looks like an AfD candidate. I'm not seeing anything to establish notability in a quick glance at the sources. Toss in Promo and COI and got something better left off the encyclopedia. Slywriter ( talk) 03:33, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
That was my first impression but I didn't want to be too aggresive. Are you going to AfD or should I? Volcom95 ( talk) 03:37, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
Whichever you like. Twinkle makes it relatively painless for me, so if you have to do it manually, Ill happily save you the time. Slywriter ( talk) 03:44, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
Special:Diff/1012328352 is when it got hijacked by COI/PR team. Pretty sure this is yet another Cryptocurrency PR job. Trying to figure out if he is notable based on the older version and some WP:BEFORE. Article is 12 years old. Slywriter ( talk) 03:48, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
WP:BEFORE leans towards better than 50% chance of establishing notability. There is the NYT in current article which discusses in-depth, though admittedly in context of company and other potentially good sources in the previous version. Not sure if a revert to the pre-COI version would be best, but suspect AfD will not be the best place to clean this up the more I dig. I'll look more in the morning, if others haven't by then Slywriter ( talk) 04:06, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Tracy Bartram

The standard COI--largely unsourced puff. Article badly needs paring and sources to be acceptable. 2601:188:180:B8E0:E88A:3DEE:416D:8F23 ( talk) 04:48, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Jeanie Roland and her restaurants

Jeanie Roland and the articles for her restaurants The Perfect Caper and Ella’s Fine Food and Drink were all created recently by three different new accounts. This is clearly not only undisclosed paid editing but also clearly attempts at hiding that fact. valereee ( talk) 14:50, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

valereee, handled (was alerted to this by someone else) - everyone here is  Confirmed to one another and to known Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bodiadub accounts. I've done a whole bunch of G5ing, and the two articles up for AfD are also G5-eligible (but I prefer not to G5 when there's an ongoing AfD). GeneralNotability ( talk) 18:06, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
Oh, interesting, GN, thanks! Duh, I hadn't even thought about the fact it was also obvious socking. valereee ( talk) 20:21, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

@ GeneralNotability: found a couple more socks:

See Draft:Avery Andon (art dealer), c:File:Avery in 2020.jpg, Draft:Laurent Tourondel, File:Laurent mugshot.png. MER-C 02:11, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

@ MER-C: Another SPA - Pricetagg - came up in the edit history of Draft:Avery Andon (art dealer) before I nom'd it for G5. I wonder if it's another sock of Bodiadub. -- Drm310 🍁 ( talk) 05:31, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

GeneralNotability these also look pretty suspicious to me:

If it turns out they're connected, it would be nice to just be able to speedy. valereee ( talk) 15:39, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

valereee, nope, no connection I can see on those two. MER-C, Drm310, good spots - NFTLoved, DrinkingWater47, and Pricetagg are all  Confirmed to each other and this latest batch. GeneralNotability ( talk) 01:47, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

2022 pageantry UPE

blocked editors in sandbox page history
pages indexed in sandbox

I suspect that there is a bunch of UPE going on around pageantry articles again. See COIN archive 164 for historical context.

We have one editor blocked recently as a sock of an LTA. I admit it's hard to tell who's a fan and who's UPE. Intercontinental coordinated editing that seems to promote the pageants, though, says something.

Inviting other COINers to consider the purpose of User:Missgluegurl/sandbox. I've brought this up at Bbb23's talkpage as a SPI-related issue but without these UPE-related concerns. Why the spike in pageviews around 5/30? Why the random set of users editing there? Why the index- and template-like contents? I'll reserve my tentative conclusion (call it an educated guess) until other people chime in. ☆ Bri ( talk) 19:32, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

West Ta East

The unregistered editor states, in an edit summary, that they have watched the show on Youtube as a paid member. See https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=West_Ta_East&type=revision&diff=1093134583&oldid=1093104073&diffmode=source This is a conflict of interest and should be declared, but the unregistered editor has not acknowledged a conflict of interest in response to the notice by User:Bonadea. Robert McClenon ( talk) 20:58, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
To add to this, the IP edits are extremely similar to previous edits (see here in particular) by Einstientesla, who identified themselves as being the copyright owner of an image sourced here to someone who would almost certainly have a COI. BubbaJoe123456 ( talk) 18:26, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

This is not a problem confined to West Ta East. There have been repeated efforts
In addition to Einstientesla, an editor who has been heavily involved in promoting King is Positiveilluminati who has also edited as Godlypresence. There's also an editing overlap between Einstientesla and Positiveilluminati in Digangana Suryavanshi, where Positiveilluminati has a clear COI. Positiveilluminati and the IP listed above do some very similar things (MOS violating use of bold text, increasing image size in infoboxes, longish and rather uncivil edit summaries, garbled English in articles and elsewhere), so it's obvious to me that they are the same user, and that they are hired to market Ramiz King on Wikipedia. -- bonadea contributions talk 14:06, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
This is not true, I have nothing to do with what you’re saying and you’re hiding away from the point I mate about why would you remove such a credible and the most current article from
ABC, on what basis when that explains the entire concept, I agree I may not be as experienced as you but I do not write falsehood, I take accountability for my err I’m in writing in a promotional tone but the premise of the show I have only stated it as per ad what ABC news reported it as which you’re hiding or removing repeatedly. Why? For instance even if I was from Ramiz King team which I am not does it still give you the right to take vengeance and remove credible sources and write your own personal v understanding ? Positiveilluminati ( talk) 14:17, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
If you’re so very right then allow another party of editors to do an analysis on the source which you removed which was the parent source to the one additional source and then you can undo the edit if they too deem that the ABC news is spreading falsehood. Your current doing is basically implying ABC AUSTRALIA is incorrect in their reporting and spreads falsehood. Positiveilluminati ( talk) 14:21, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
I have nothing to do with the allegations you’re putting on me all I’m asking on what basis you removed ABC Australia article when it’s an australia commissioned show and they personally interviewed them and why are you removing the premise of the show I wrote aw per aw the source? Forgive me for the promotional tone but the premise is what I fight for, it is misleading what you’re writing. Positiveilluminati ( talk) 14:27, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
Actual sequence of events: between 23:27 last night and 11:01 this morning (UTC), you made multiple edits (logged in and logged out – please make sure that you are logged in to this account when you edit Wikipedia), which were problematic for many reasons including violations of the Manual of Style, nearly incomprehensible phrasing, inappropriate image size changes, and promotional style. You also made multiple personal attacks in the edit summaries. Somwehere in there, you added the source from abc.net.au, which hadn't been in the article previously, though it looks like you thought it was. Since the changes overall were disruptive and completely ignored the talk page discussion, I reverted them in one fell swoop at 12:49 (UTC). You restored most of them at 13:40, and instead of reverting you again, I copyedited the content, fixed the formatting, and did some other necessary edits, publishing that version at 13:57. The abc.net.au source was not removed (well, I added another copy of it by mistake, so I removed the duplicate). Your posts above are from 14:17, 14:21, and 14:27, so you are registering a complaint about something that had already been fixed. This is not the point of the discussion, however. The point is that there is a coordinated effort to promote Ramiz King on Wikipedia. -- bonadea contributions talk 15:16, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

To my justice, yes IP address can be similar I never denied a connection with them But it’s only because we are using the same wifi network I think? And there’s a group of people who don’t promote Ramiz King Biasedlu only but all our favourite mtv stars or Bigg boss people hence our edits on the selected individual and fighting for our friends like emiway bantai and as a fan of PRATIK sehajpal we are on the drive to let the biased behaviour be diminished in Wikipedia which some participate and also during this journey we’ve discovered afghan media is in need of help as they don’t have facility like we all do and Wikipedia should consider that and the editors. Einstientesla ( talk) 21:03, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Aniruddha Jatkar

Unfortunately, this is a repeat of Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive_190#Aniruddha Jatkar from just two weeks ago. It seems be re-occurring. Cheers, SVT Cobra 01:02, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

See my recent edits and edit summaries on this article. This user been insincere about this complaint as seen last time. [20] Whether this is a case of COI or not is not clear but the user is surely WP:NOTHERE. 110.227.234.16 ( talk) 04:35, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Samir.hashisho

Samer.hashisho just keeps resubmitting over and over drafts for companies that are owned by the same parent company. They've never responded to messages on their talk, including one asking them to disclose their clear paid contributor status. Never made a talk posting anywhere. valereee ( talk) 13:21, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

It seems to be a case of WP:NOTHERE. The dairy article, that has been floating about for about two years in various forms. Now I recognise it. scope_creep Talk 14:20, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
And also undisclosed WP:PAID. I'll leave them a warning about that just so it's on the record. -- Drm310 🍁 ( talk) 17:03, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
They are still editing while refusing to communicate. I've had enough... I've contacted paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org with the relevant on- and off-wiki evidence. -- Drm310 🍁 ( talk) 14:21, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
Samer.hashisho is now blocked for undisclosed paid editing, and all of their promotional edits have been deleted. Good report, Valereee. -- Drm310 🍁 ( talk) 21:56, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Emil.stanev

Another one, trying to create the same two articles from the same parent company. All the versions of La Crima Dairy that have been created so far need to be salted, IMO. Draft:LÀCRIMA DAIRY. valereee ( talk) 15:56, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Oh, definitely another undisclosed paid editor here. I've left a {{ uw-paid1}} notice but if they come back without disclosing, I'm not going to wait around before reporting them. -- Drm310 🍁 ( talk) 17:12, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Crystal Head Vodka

SPA keeps re-adding long unsourced list of awards. No response to COI notice on their TP. MB 21:07, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

@ MB: Thanks for bringing here. The have an obvious undisclosed COI/being paid to edit here and all of their edits have been promotional over many years. I've blocked them accordingly. SmartSE ( talk) 11:48, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
Engaging in UPE/COI editing will end in Nothing but Trouble. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 11:51, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

UPE Honkaku Spirits

Draft:Honkaku_Spirits contains clear signs of UPE with intent to game/conceal that. valereee ( talk) 19:00, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

The reference to the Shurtleff / Apyagi book is absurdly incompetent. It links to a search for the phrase "Ultimately, the whisky trust collapsed because of trust-busting legislation enacted by the Illinois General Assembly in 1891 and the depression of 1893", but not properly surrounded by quote marks. The result is naturally a swarm of hits for salient words like in, and, by, of etc etc. But nothing daunted, the editors offer this search as a "source". (By adding the missing quote mark, I found the sentence on p. 179, but that didn't fix the problem. It's a quote not from the text in the book, but from a footnote quoting a journal article, which I think was in turn quoting something else — it's not entirely clear. So there's everything possible wrong with this "source".) As detailed by Valereee in her rejection of the draft, here, the other sources don't support notability either, but bear the hallmarks of press releases. Bishonen | tålk 21:05, 30 June 2022 (UTC).

Weatherford College

This is a single-purpose editor who only edits this article and has ignored multiple warnings and questions from different editors. It is reasonable to suspect a COI, perhaps even an undisclosed paid editing relationship. ElKevbo ( talk) 22:25, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

I have page-blocked the user indefinitely from Weatherford College. Bishonen | tålk 07:21, 1 July 2022 (UTC).

User:Vika007, User:Serebroo, User:Napoleonico007

User accounts Vika007, Napoleonico007 and Serebroo all are (almost) solely dedicated to edit articles related to Lena Hades. I have asked Vika007 to disclose whether she is related to Lena Hades (Vika007 has been editing Hades-related articles for 8+ years, often fixing the ever-moving "official website" for Hades), but Vika007 ignored my question.

I strongly suspect these user accounts are either operated by Hades herself, or are affiliated with her. Worth mentioning, in Russian wikipedia, there is ru:User:Serebro (notice the similarity to "Serebroo" username) who also edited mostly Hades-related articles. What's interesting is that both ru:User:Serebro and Vika007 describe themselves as "enthusiasts for modern art", art majors or in similar manner (texts on their userpages are almost identical). "Serebro", as I have discovered, has also been active at least in Spanish Wikipedia too ( es:User:Serebroo).. where she also edits Hades-related articles. There could be more accounts belonging to this editor, but I only found three (or four, if you consider "Serebroo" and "Serebro" to be separate). 178.121.33.109 ( talk) 16:07, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

User:Vika007 denied any connection to Lena Hades or the other aforementioned user accounts on her talk page. 178.121.33.109 ( talk) 13:15, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

User:Nehme1499's paid editing

User:Nehme1499 has advanced rights such as autopatroller and NPR, but they are a paid editor? Not sure, if Wikipedia community confers such rights to paid editors (or, at least remove autopatrolled because it has been abused?). Paid articles should go through AfC, so they can be reviewed by a neutral editor. Nehme1499 hasn't followed despite being an established editor. Also, they haven't declared where they advertise or how they acquire clients? It is required by Wikimedia TOU, so they should do that.

Perhaps, a warning and draftification of their articles should work? Biographies such as Kazim Fayad are completely non-notable. 95.233.30.130 ( talk) 06:00, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

In accordance with the Terms of Use, I must disclose [my] employer [...] in at least one of the following ways: 1. a statement on your user page (done), 2. a statement on the talk page accompanying any paid contributions (done) [...]. What is not permitted is paid contributions without disclosure (my emphasis), which is not what I have done. Also, I make sure that, regardless of whether I have been paid or not for the articles I publish, they all pass the WP:GNG guideline (which, from my viewpoint, all five of the articles listed above do). Peter Khalife, for example, was proposed for deletion and kept (with no one voting to delete). Paid articles should go through AfC and they haven't declared where they advertise: could you please point me to the guideline stating that these are necessary? Nehme 1499 06:14, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
Also, I find it strange that the IP/user's only edits are regarding my paid editing. Nehme 1499 06:15, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
@ Nehme1499: See WP:PAY, you should put new articles through the Articles for Creation (AfC) process instead of creating them directly. –  Joe ( talk) 10:46, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
The risk of the autopatrolled right being abused exceeds the small cost of other volunteers having to review articles. Best practice for paid editors is to use AFC. Looking at Kazim Fayad there are definitely issues with sourcing that AFC could have addressed. I will be removing this right for sure and will also look into the use of patroller too as we have often seen that abused. @ Kudpung: 99% you'll agree with this, but just FYIng as you added the autopatrolled right back in 2020 2019 (I think prior to any paid editing). SmartSE ( talk) 10:25, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
(I'm only here because I was pinged). It's not just holders of autopatrolled or NPP rights. There are possibly still some admins who secretly write for pay. I used to enjoy doing the forensics to flush them out and it's one of the reasons why I still strongly campaign for improvement of NPP even though I will usually run a mile from the New Pages Feed these days. I think all paid editors, whoever they are, should be ashamed of exploiting for financial gain what volunteers have spent thousands of hours building for free. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 12:22, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
I've also draftified that article to Draft:Kazim Fayad. SmartSE ( talk) 10:29, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
I've also pulled new page reviewer (courtesy ping granting admin @ Swarm:). It's also too sensitive to trust to paid editors.
@ Nehme1499: I find it a bit suspicious that you created your first disclosed paid article, Peter Khalife, four days after you requested the NPP right. Were you aware that you were very unlikely to be granted it as a paid editor? –  Joe ( talk) 10:56, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
Good decision on the Draft:Kazim Fayad draft. scope_creep Talk 11:08, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
I was not aware of WP:PAY, so that's on me. Were you aware that you were very unlikely to be granted it as a paid editor? Not really. Actually, I had been advised to apply for NPP by another user. Regarding pulling my Autopatrolled and RPR rights, I'm fine with that. Though, I wonder what the benefit of my honesty is. I feel like had I not disclosed anything on my userpage + article talk pages we would not be here (just to clarify, this is not my modus operandi, I would still prefer to be upfront and disclose my COI). What is not seen in the background is that I refused service to many other individuals who had contacted me, on the basis that I felt that WP:GNG was not met. Just to be clear, I don't advertise my services anywhere: some individuals contact me privately via social media and ask me to create them an article (per what I said above, I usually refuse). Nehme 1499 14:02, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
Just completely out of the clear blue sky, international footballers (or their representatives) contact you on social media? How do they even know you are a Wikipedian? If you ask me, this explanation stretches credulity. -- SVT Cobra 19:36, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
Knowing people in Lebanon is not difficult, it's a small circle. My friend works as a journalist, he knows other guys, these guys know agents, who in turn know the footballers, etc... It's all a chain reaction to get from the footballer/agent to me. Nehme 1499 19:40, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
So it's word-of-mouth advertising, as opposed to literal online advertising? -- SVT Cobra 20:00, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
I guess it's inverse advertising, if that makes sense. I never made any active effort in making myself known as a Wikipedia editor. The footballers ask a friend if they know someone who edits Wikipedia, they in turn ask others until they reach me. I guess having already made a few Wikipedia pages for some people, word spread. I never really specifically asked them to pay me as well. They asked me to make a page and offered money. If I see that WP:GNG is met, I accept. Otherwise I don't. Nehme 1499 20:05, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
This also doesn't even begin to cover your serious conflict of interest. Without getting too far into it because I'm not going to out you, it's pretty telling in many of the articles you've written, that the sourcing largely goes back to one company, specifically one that engages in sports coverage and said source(s) are largely added to Wikipedia almost exclusively by you. PRAXIDICAE🌈 20:19, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
I'm also the only editor who deals with Lebanese football on Wikipedia, so naturally no one else is going to add sources dealing with that topic. Nehme 1499 20:30, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
That...isn't even remotely related to the point that is being made and is also patently untrue. PRAXIDICAE🌈 21:02, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
I answered your statement added to Wikipedia almost exclusively by you. I don't know which website you are talking about, but I'd assume that since I'm (almost) the only one to use it as a source it must be about Lebanese football. That is also patently untrue: you're saying that there are other regular Wikipedia editors who deal with Lebanese football? Lots deal with football, a few regarding Asian or Middle Eastern football, but no one specifically about Lebanese. If the website is Lebanese, I don't see how other users are going to care about using it in non-Lebanese related topics. I frankly don't understand what this is about. Nehme 1499 21:14, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
You know very well that if I disclose exactly which sources I'm talking about it would run afoul of outing. So it's your choice, you need to also disclose your COI or the information can be sent to arbcom to avoid WP:OUTING here. PRAXIDICAE🌈 15:55, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment Either way, it is a clear COI. scope_creep Talk 21:30, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
My paid editing? Yes, I also disclosed that appropriately. Regarding the second half of this discussion, I'm not sure what we are talking about. Nehme 1499 21:36, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

User:Chipmunkdavis

Suspected state/paid editor. After consensus was reached on article talk page for Russia a single sentence was added. Two users have tried to delete this text multiple times. After Chipmunkdavis was notified that consensus was reached on the talk page they continued to revert the edit. Ironically, trying to hide the fact that Russia is at war, they engaged in their own edit war. Any support would be appreciated here, as we all know Russia is actively engaged in information warfare on Wikipedia.

Colinmcdermott ( talk) 11:13, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Three different editors have disagreed with you; I have now reverted your most recent edit, as there is no consensus on the talk page to add that sentence. I would suggest that you withdraw this before a WP:BOOMERANG for WP:EDIT WARRING and casting WP:ASPERSIONS. BilledMammal ( talk) 11:37, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
I agree with BilledMammal on this, there is clearly no consensus for inclusion at this point, and edit summaries like this and this contain clear personal attacks and aspersions. WP:VANDALISM also has a specific meaning, and this ain't it. Withdrawing your complaint now will likely save you a significant headache soon. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 11:46, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
This is clearly a content dispute and not a COI on CMD's part. I do not see any consensus on the article's talkpage. Seloloving ( talk) 15:36, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Interesting to see how successful Russia have been infiltrating Wikipedia in this information war. There is a 3v2 consensus on talk page, yet this means nothing to editors with a strange history of making pro-Kremlin edits. People who should no better looking the other way. Colinmcdermott ( talk) 17:25, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Everyone who disagrees with me is Russia. Please read WP:ASPERSIONS. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 17:27, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
@ Colinmcdermott: Even if we we went by raw headcount and not the merits of arguments, I see 3 supports and 3 opposes. — C.Fred ( talk) 17:33, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
"3v2 consensus" is an oxymoron; also please see WP:NOTVOTE. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:08, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
  • @ Colinmcdermott: the chances that Chipmunkdavis is a Russian state agent are near zero... I can assure you of that based on extensive interactions with them over the years across a wide variety of topic areas. Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 19:55, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
    Sounds like something a red would say! ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 19:58, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
    Oh, pipe down, 007! Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 20:03, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

The Good Boss

We have a user repeatedly adding a bit-part child actor (which you can easily check her name in the diffs, but I will refer to here as "girlname") to the cast section of The Good Boss ( [21] [22] [23] [24]) (see Love Gets a Room for a similar pattern [25] [26] [27] [28]) bringing imdb.com as a source. Despite several warnings, the user (featuring a username similar to that of girlname) refrains to edit with authoritative sources (instead of imdb) or disclose a conflict of interest and prefers to engage in edit warring, returning girlname to the cast. Imdb review section for both films is full of people extolling girlname, purportedly relatives of girlname.--Asqueladd ( talk) 14:32, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

No. No. No. I have added ALL the cast of the 2 pages: The Good Boss (El buen patrón) and Love Gets a Room in the right order, with references and lots of dedication. My editing is accurate and ads important and valuable information to Wikipedia. This user (Asqueladd) is reverting and reverting my editing, with ugly comments and threatening language. The "girlname" in question appears in both movies (with important roles) and she also appears in both trailers. I'm not promoting anybody, only adding important information to Wikipedia. This user (Asqueladd) argues that IMDb is not a reliable source. IMDb is the most reliable source in cinema today (worldwide). This user (Asqueladd) is making that Wikipedia becomes an unpleasant community. Please take some constructive action. Thank you very much & many greetings Antonia Tejeda Barros ( talk) 14:42, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
Just a comment regarding the content dispute: sources other than IMDb, such as this and this, also credit the girl as being part of the cast. Nehme 1499 14:50, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
Antonia Tejeda Barros, your comment that IMDb is "the most reliable source in cinema today" is the opposite of what has been agreed by the wikipedia community. See WP:IMDB and WP:UGC for why it is considered unreliable here and therefore why you should stop using it. Melcous ( talk) 23:13, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
In terms of the Conflict of Interest, it is fairly easy to see from edits here + IMDB what the relationship between the editor and the subject is. Editing about family members is a clear conflict of interest, and should be disclosed and the talk page used to propose changes. Melcous ( talk) 23:21, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Jon Entine

The account seems to have tacitly admitted that they are the subject, but has not been explicit about it. Orange Mike | Talk 16:00, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

@ Orangemike: The edit summary in this edit is a pretty clear disclosure of their identity. -- Drm310 🍁 ( talk) 04:53, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
Not really sure what the specific issue is here? Those of us that edit the actual BLP have been aware of this for some time based on previous talk discussions and generally have handling any egregious promotional edits that came from them. Most of the time it's just been run of the mill BLP subject wanting to add material and tension with Wikipedia standards. They made a few minor edits to their BLP recently that were rejected ( some rightly so), but that's about it, and it's been extremely quiet just prior to yesterday. I'd suggest using the article talk pages for minor things like this rather than jumping to a noticeboard. KoA ( talk) 16:08, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Brandon Friedman

There's been what looks to me like serial UPE at this article going back to its creation, and I tagged it. Editor Nmd1978, who recently created an article for Friedman's business Rakkasan Tea Company, came in and untagged it. I retagged and opened a discussion at Talk:Brandon Friedman. Nmd1978, who is new enough to perhaps not realize that's where they should have gone next, instead removed the tag again. I pinged them again to the talk, and we've been discussing, but they're quite insistent that the article not be tagged. I thought another set of eyes might be helpful. valereee ( talk) 19:10, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Valereee, I initially added COI tag but after doing cleanup, removed it since whatever damage COIs have done is currently not in the article. Guess time will tell if a COI editor is still lingering. Slywriter ( talk) 20:55, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
@ Slywriter, happy to leave it off with the edits you made. I do think that with the history of what to me looks like serial UPE editing, we need to keep an eye on this article. There'll be another along in a bit. valereee ( talk) 21:09, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Added to my watchlist. Will review the book article later, it has issues as well. Slywriter ( talk) 21:12, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
oooh, hadn't even looked at the book article. :D valereee ( talk) 21:14, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Alfred University

This editor has acknowledged being an employee of the university paid to edit its Wikipedia article but refuses to communicate in any way and continues to edit the article in problematic ( WP:POV, WP:UNIGUIDE, etc.) ways. ElKevbo ( talk) 22:59, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

I've put it on my watch list, if only because I was encouraged to attend this institution many years ago (though I did not do so!). Cheers. Dumuzid ( talk) 23:13, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Operation Atalanta

The article Operation Atalanta appears to have been subjected to long-term editing by the organization's public affairs office (see two blocked accounts above). I haven't had the opportunity to sift through their additions, but there appears to be a lot of WP:PRIMARY source material, a lot of which I will guess isn't suitable. If anyone else is able to evaluate and pare back irrelevant content, it would be appreciated. Drm310 🍁 ( talk) 14:19, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_190&oldid=1099694777"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE