Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard

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

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

Search the COI noticeboard archives

Help answer requested edits

Category:Wikipedia conflict of interest edit requests is where COI editors have placed the {{Request edit}} template: Wikipedia conflict of interest edit requests Talk:90min Talk:AARP Talk:Accenture Talk:Achondroplasia Talk:Bill Ackman Talk:Bill Adderley Talk:Amdocs Talk:American Lebanese Syrian Associated Charities Talk:American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers Talk:Paul Andrew (designer) Talk:Argentina–Brazil relations Talk:Ascension (healthcare system) Talk:Asparaginase Talk:Aurecon Talk:Radha Balakrishnan Talk:Bank of America Talk:Ornella Barra Talk:Amy Coney Barrett Talk:Barrett, The Honors College Talk:Better.com Talk:James Bevan (diplomat) Talk:Bitcoin Cash Talk:Black Catholic Messenger Talk:Len Blavatnik Talk:Mike Buchanan (politician) Talk:Center for Documentary Studies Talk:Chan Zuckerberg Biohub Talk:Chanel Talk:Change.org Talk:Jessica Chastain Talk:Chef'Store Talk:Coda (document editor) Talk:Colantonio Incorporated Talk:David Copperfield (illusionist) Talk:Cracker Barrel Talk:Tom Crosshill Talk:Stephanie Cutter Talk:Daisyworld Talk:Errol Damelin Talk:Davis Wright Tremaine Talk:Digital agriculture Talk:Digital Currency Group Talk:Diligent Corporation Talk:Vishva Dixit Talk:Dover Corporation Talk:Paul W. Draper Talk:Jenny Durkan Talk:Edelson Talk:Electronic fluency device Talk:EPAM Systems Talk:Epic Aircraft Talk:Eureka (organisation) Talk:European Golf Association Talk:Evernote Talk:Fair Work Ombudsman Talk:Families USA Talk:Mark Felton Talk:Financial Conduct Authority Talk:Fortinet Talk:FreedomWorks Talk:Freeport-McMoRan Talk:Francis French Talk:Deborah Frincke Talk:Frontiers Media Talk:Kate Gale Talk:Gregory Garde Talk:Geriatrics Talk:Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence Talk:GoodLeap Talk:Jonathan D. Gray Talk:Daphne Guinness Talk:Henley & Partners Talk:Hikvision Talk:Hilbert College Talk:HomeLight Talk:Thomas Homer-Dixon Talk:Hudson Pacific Properties Talk:Human Appeal Talk:Icertis Talk:Illinois Eye Bank Talk:Interactive Brokers Talk:International Medical Corps Talk:Invitation Homes Talk:Ion Innovation District Talk:Philippe Jabre Talk:Bawa Jain Talk:James J. Peters VA Medical Center Talk:Jenoptik Talk:Tim Jones (writer) Talk:Judo Bank Talk:Nathan Jurevicius Talk:Christian Kälin Talk:Joseph Keshet Talk:Reshma Kewalramani Talk:Olaf Koch Talk:Yoram Koren Talk:LabVantage Talk:Charles Lane (journalist) Talk:Leaders for Global Operations Talk:LegalShield Talk:Legatum Institute Talk:Jeffrey Leiden Talk:Marcus Lemonis Talk:LendingClub Talk:Lightspeed (company) Talk:Steve Linick Talk:List of domestic violence hotlines Talk:List of venture capital firms Talk:Harry Litman Talk:LMAX Group Talk:Longmont Museum & Cultural Center Talk:LoopUp Talk:Lufthansa Cargo Talk:Lush (company) Talk:Lyric Opera of Chicago Talk:M9 half-track Talk:Mayo Clinic Health System Talk:Patrick McGuire (solicitor) Talk:Chris Meek Talk:Metro AG Talk:Minimum description length Talk:Mobileye Talk:Marc Morial Talk:Clayton Morris Talk:Move (company) Talk:Mpower Financing Talk:MyRepublic Talk:Nationwide Building Society Talk:NCS Group Talk:Newmark Group Talk:Nottawaseppi Huron Band of Potawatomi Talk:Novator Partners Talk:Martin �?degaard Talk:Omaha Steaks Talk:Omidyar Network Talk:Oncor Electric Delivery Talk:Open banking Talk:Opyl Talk:Andrew Oyombe Talk:P&O Maritime Logistics Talk:Pacific Equity Partners Talk:Panasonic Talk:Park Lane Stables Teddington Talk:Payoneer Talk:Pitney Bowes Talk:Pizza Hut Talk:The Players' Tribune Talk:Gabe Polsky Talk:Polymath Talk:Porter Novelli Talk:Presidential transition of Joe Biden Talk:Qnet Talk:Robert Qualters Talk:Randox Talk:Realtor.com Talk:Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals Talk:Dani Reiss Talk:Republic Services Talk:Pete Ricketts Talk:Riverbed Technology Talk:Jared Roach Talk:Royal Society Talk:Ruder Finn Talk:Saint Mary's University (Halifax) Talk:Sanctuary Housing Talk:Sandy Munro Talk:Ulf Mark Schneider Talk:Ron Schnell Talk:Sculptor Capital Management Talk:Sculpture Park Engelbrecht Talk:Terje G. Simonsen Talk:Singularity University Talk:Carol Smallwood Talk:Software Guard Extensions Talk:Soil Association Talk:SoldierStrong Talk:Son of the South (film) Talk:Starbucks Talk:SThree Talk:Sultan Al Jaber Talk:Sven Talk:Julie Sweet Talk:Takraf GmbH Talk:Tamil Nadu Talk:TechnologyOne Talk:TGT Oil and Gas Services Talk:The Points Guy Talk:The Raw Story Talk:The Real News Network Talk:TIPA Corp Talk:Together for Mental Wellbeing Talk:Truliant Federal Credit Union Talk:United States Medical Licensing Examination Talk:Universum College Talk:Unmanned aerial vehicle Talk:Uproxx Talk:Bulat Utemuratov Talk:Uveitic glaucoma Talk:Uveitis Talk:Valens Semiconductor

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 [email protected] 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)

West Ta East

• West Ta East (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 123.208.65.230 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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/w/index.php?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

• to create an article about the show's producer Ramiz King: see Draft:Ramiz King (creation log); COI declaration of one of the previous users creating this, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ramiz King
• to add promotional text about him or name-drop him in other articles: [1], [2] and [3] (same article, clearly same user with different IPs), [4], [5]
• to create drafts and/or articles about other projects of his: Draft:The Hype House India, Draft:Life According to Ramiz, Draft:BaChashem.

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)

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:

• NFTLoved (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser (log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• DrinkingWater47 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser (log) · investigate · cuwiki)

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:

• Risih Anz (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser (log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Usunagi (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser (log) · investigate · cuwiki)

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)

Frank E. Holmes

• Frank E. Holmes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

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

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)

Crystal Head Vodka

• Crystal Head Vodka (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Dustintitus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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)

2022 pageantry UPE

• User:Missgluegurl/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

blocked editors in sandbox page history

• MaximoredelValle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) RadyoUkay819 sock
• Miss Intercontinental (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 180.191.14.133 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) rangeblocked by Bbb23, "either abusive logged out editing or block evasion"

pages indexed in sandbox

• Miss World (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Miss Universe (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Miss International (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Miss Earth (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Miss Supranational (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Miss Globe International (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Miss Grand International (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Reina Hispanoamericana (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Binibining Pilipinas (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Miss Philippines Earth (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Miss World Philippines (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Miss Universe Philippines (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Mutya ng Pilipinas (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Miss Venezuela (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Miss Universe Colombia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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)

Aniruddha Jatkar

• Aniruddha Jatkar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• AnuragIC (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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, SVTCobra 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.[6] 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)

User:Vika007, User:Serebroo, User:Napoleonico007

• Lena Hades (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Vika007 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Napoleonico007 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Serebroo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• Peter Khalife (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Daniel Giménez (football manager) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Ali Fayad (footballer) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Kazim Fayad (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Nehme1499 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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? Nehme₁₄₉₉ 06:14, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Also, I find it strange that the IP/user's only edits are regarding my paid editing. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 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 �?ุดผึ้ง (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). Nehme₁₄₉₉ 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. -- SVTCobra 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. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 19:40, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

So it's word-of-mouth advertising, as opposed to literal online advertising? -- SVTCobra 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. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 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. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 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. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 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. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 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)

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

• Weatherford College (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Jeanmay23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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).

The Good Boss

• The Good Boss (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Love Gets a Room (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Antonia Tejeda Barros (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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 ([7][8][9][10]) (see Love Gets a Room for a similar pattern [11][12][13][14]) 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. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 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)

User:Big Ayeh

• Draft:Paa Kwasi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Dobble (music duo) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Draft:Kumi Guitar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Big Ayeh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Connection can be proven on Commons: commons:File:Paa Kwasi (Artist).jpg#Summary. There was a VRT ticket confirming their permission to upload to commons. More at User talk:Big Ayeh#June 2022. They should ideally be page blocked. 0xDeadbeef 02:20, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Notice that the user's YouTube link goes to BigAyehMedia, which houses Official Videos for Dobble and Paa Kwasi. If the person is not associated with these musical acts, they need to change their username here, but it's likely they are associated, given how long they've been constantly editing on these pages and their own user page to promote their artist. AngusW�?��?�F (bark • sniff) 03:13, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Jon Entine

• Jon Entine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• NGOWatch (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Runjonrun (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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)

Otrium

• Contentsquare (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Cambrian Biopharma (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Orgain (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• LoanDepot (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• TechnoTalk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This account seems to be created a a large number of spammy articles on private businesses. Over the last few couple of years, a good number have been deleted, csd'd, drafted, images deleted by commons and so on. 7 out of 26 have been deleted and many of the remaining ones look like brochure articles. I reviewed one of their articles, Otrium, it went to Afd Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Otrium and was deleted.The account went off the deep end during the Afd, and opened a spurious Ani notice: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Scope Creep: revenge and disruptive editing part 2. Several weird things came to light including, rapid article output. I asked whether they were being paid, and they said no. More eyes are needed. scope_creep^Talk 15:38, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Comment Retaliatory filing for an ANI report I filed highlighting abusive behavior from a seemingly experienced editor. Detailed response is given at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Scope_Creep:_revenge_and_disruptive_editing_part_2. This is an exaggerated report. One article I wrote was just deleted, but that's the first in 6 years. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/East Ventures was also recently deleted, but I didn't write it. As I explained in the deletion discussion, I just improved it and moved it to mainspace, until it was wrecked by insiders. Logo deletion activity on talk pages is common when they are replaced with a new version. Nothing I wrote has ever been draftified. This report simply substantiates what I reported at ANI. TechnoTalk (talk) 19:35, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

• With Otrium deleted, my comment about recent additions to the article in the Otrium AfD is less clear because I did not identify which editor made the additions - to clarify, the diffs point to additions by TechnoTalk. Other contributions by TechnoTalk are also discussed in the Contentsquare AfD and the Cambrian Biopharma AfD. As a general matter, I think it can take some time to learn how to identify promotional sources, and TechnoTalk's conduct in these AfDs may indicate some assistance is needed. Beccaynr (talk) 20:07, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

@Beccaynr: I'm always trying to learn. I spend a lot of time at the AfC help desk helping other editors with poorly-sourced articles. As far as I know, none of the publications I used as sources are flagged as problematic on the reliable sources board, and indeed they are used in many articles, without drama. I'm unclear how I'm supposed to know to not include them just because another editor doesn't like them. If someone doesn't like the sourcing, wouldn't it be better to try to get them blocked or declared unreliable so this issue doesn't keep coming up again. TechnoTalk (talk) 01:34, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

TechnoTalk, the issue isn't always the source itself but the specific content of the article. A source can have useful articles mixed with churnalism, advertorials and routine transactional information that do not indicate notability. After awhile you will get a feel for what's a press release even if it has a byline. If nothing else, avoid using any sources that discuss funding rounds as they are consistently dismissed by the community as not meeting WP:CORPDEPTH. Slywriter (talk) 01:48, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

@Beccaynr: Thanks for clarifying. I've seen some discussion about funding rounds where they distinguish unicorn funding from routine everyday funding. We have a unicorn (finance) article and List of unicorn startup companies suggesting that not all funding rounds are treated the same by Wikipedia. But I'll avoid them as much as I can. And LoanDepot listed above is now public anyway. TechnoTalk (talk) 01:56, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

TechnoTalk, that was Slywriter, not me - my reply is below. As to the potential for unicorn funding to be distinguished, the WP:CORPDEPTH guideline seems to already accommodate this, because a reliable source discussing the significance of unicorn funding could also provide an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization, that per WP:ORGIND, includes original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject, and then it could support notability. Beccaynr (talk) 02:27, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

WP:SIRS encapsulates that point and it holds true regardless of whether it is related to "unicorn" coverage. The issue I'm seeing is Techno not listening/understanding/accepting their opinion that unicorn funding rounds make the topic company notable and announcements mentioning this fact must be acceptable for establishing notability despite being told multiple times by multiple editors this is not the case. Techno is still pushing sources that are clearly based entirely on promotion/announcement/PR. I can understand Techno's dismay at seeing articles he created being at AfD, those articles having been nominated by SC. But it isn't SC that decides at AfD, it is up to the community and the closing admin who reach a consensus. I can understand why he believed he was justified in filing a complaint at AN/I but again, Techno isn't listening to what is being said by *others* at AfD and AN/I. Others have now said to him that he isn't "reading the room" and in danger of WP:BOOMERANG. It shouldn't happen this time but I'm less positive if Techno continues in the same manner. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:50, 6 July 2022 (UTC) (edited for clarity)

TechnoTalk, in the Otrium AfD, HighKing commented, "there's more requirements than just "RS" for establishing notability" before an extensive analysis of applicable guidelines and sources [15]. I quoted part of WP:ORGCRIT in the Contentsquare AfD [16] and Cambrian Biopharma AfD [17], specifically The guideline, among other things, is meant to address some of the common issues with abusing Wikipedia for advertising and promotion. These are established policies and guidelines designed to protect the encyclopedia. I agree with how Slywriter describes the general landscape, and I think this helps explain why only focusing on whether a source is reliable is not enough, because we need sources that are reliable and independent to build an article. The guidelines for independence are detailed for organizations and companies, and this helps determine whether there is sufficient sourcing to overcome the second prong of W:N, i.e. whether the article should be excluded per the What Wikipedia is Not policy, including WP:PROMOTION. Beccaynr (talk) 02:00, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

• Special:Permalink/1051303009 - Potentially useful RfC that got archived without being closed but discusses Unicorn funding rounds and notability. Not sure whether I should (or is even proper to) drag it out of archive for a proper close. Though TechnoTalk, it may be a useful starting point if you wish to pursue a fuller community discussion at the proper notability page. Slywriter (talk) 02:24, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
• Comment It is likely that there is no COI and that Techno was over-enthusiastic instead without a firm understanding of our notability guidelines. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:45, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
• Comment Coincidentally I just stumbled across FabFitFun, which is so spammy I was surprised to discover it had just survived an AfD, so I did a source assessment, which is at Talk:FabFitFun#Assessing sources. It's not pretty. I went to TechnoTalk's talk to discuss and found this COIN. I am pretty concerned about the article creations by this editor. I want to give them the benefit of the doubt, but if this editor doesn't have some sort of COI with all of these companies, they need to start using AfC for a while to help them learn what is and isn't a usable source for supporting notability. valereee (talk) 18:31, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

@Valereee: That is excellent wee table you have made there. Mighty handy. scope_creep^Talk 18:54, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

@Scope creep, there's a handy wee script called SA Table Generator. Lets you define number of rows and just fill in. valereee (talk) 18:57, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

• Comment Thanks for the feedback everyone. I'm going to take the suggestions to heart. I'll look at AfC. I've never used it myself, but see a lot of rejection frustration coming from it. Looking at Valereee's sourcing table, I still disagree that coverage based on press releases shouldn't be used to source articles, or specifically to show notability. It's more nuanced than that. A press release is how companies alert the media that there's something noteworthy happening, and the media can decide to cover it or not. The vast majority of press releases immediately disappear, only to exist on the company's "In the news" page. The reliable sources noticeboard should be our bible for sourcing, not whether we think a piece is based on a press release or not. Otherwise it's the same discussion rehashed over and over again. As discussed above, I also disagree about the general disqualification of funding news. That also seems to be a popular one accompanying delete votes in deletion discussions. Some funding announcements are major, especially if the company gets unicorn valuation as a result. Such announcements should be considered on a case by case basis, rather than dismissed outright. I wish there were more people in these discussions who actively contribute business articles, but I can understand their shyness after seeing where my efforts have gotten me. Thanks for that permalink Slywriter. That looks like the one I read, but I couldn't find it. I'll see if I can rekindle interest and get a definitive consensus on the funding and press release subjects. If I can, that will effect not only my article creation efforts but the advice I give at the AfC help desk. TechnoTalk (talk) 00:38, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Sagar Wahi

• Sagar Wahi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Shruti Bera (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sagar Wahi is a long term spam targe for paid/coi editors and there doesn't appear to be any change with the new iteration. Shruti Bera originally disclosed incorrectly on their userpage and now is claiming they "made a mistake" when they said they were paid. This is pretty transparent and like the rest of the spammers before them, they refuse to adequately disclose and thus should be blocked. PRAXIDICAE�? 15:42, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Asheema Vardaan does not appear to have been ready to move from draft to mainspace. --SVTCobra 21:36, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

And it was moved in less than an hour after Praxidicae questioned the editor. --SVTCobra 23:35, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Brandon Friedman

• Brandon Friedman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Rakkasan Tea Company (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Nmd1978 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• Alfred University (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Mindemoyawikieditor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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)