Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Simplified English

Welcome to Conflict of interest Noticeboard (COIN)
Shortcuts WP:COI/NWP:COI/N WP:COINWP:COIN WP:COIBOARDWP:COIBOARD Sections older than 14 days archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. Click here to purge this page (For help, see Wikipedia:Purge) This Conflict of interest/Noticeboard (COIN) page is for determining whether a specific editor has a conflict of interest (COI) for a specific article and whether an edit by a COIN-declared COI editor meets a requirement of the Conflict of Interest guideline. A conflict of interest may occur when an editor has a close personal or business connection with article topics. Post here if you are concerned that an editor has a COI, and is using Wikipedia to promote their own interests at the expense of neutrality. For content disputes, try proposing changes at the article talk page first and otherwise follow the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution procedural policy.
When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. 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}} (with an explanation on the article's talk page), and/or the user may be warned via {{subst:uw-coi|Article}}, if not already done. 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:

• Gondwana Records (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Mammal Hands (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Hania Rani (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Matthew Halsall (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• GeorgiaGondwanaRecords (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Will Gondwana (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Dangondwana (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Mlee164 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - suspicion based on the combination of edit history and user name similarity to Leem1020 on Commons who uploaded record label press label as "own work"

Username implies official connection to record label. No disclosure of paid editing has been made by the editor. Edits consist almost entirely of edits to the record label or to artists signed to the label (including deleted articles). Chubbles (talk) 15:05, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am a fan of the label. GeorgiaGondwanaRecords (talk) 15:14, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We still don't allow usernames implying official/shared use regardless of whether or not it is. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 16:06, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Off-wiki evidence also points to "is". DoubleCross (‡) 16:54, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming it is a personal name at the beginning of the username, then this falls into the "Sara Smith at XYZ Company" category of an acceptable username.

Certainly a well-founded concern about COI and undisclosed paid editing. GeorgiaGondwanaRecords, if you are employed by this company, then you are a paid editor. Attempting to conceal a paid relationship won't bode well for you on Wikipedia. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 19:53, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the editing pattern, various accounts, band member participation in bands, it's more likely than not that there's concerted public relations editing effort by Gondwana. I've added additional accounts and articles I've spotted. I also noticed someone uploaded Matthew Hasall's picture on commons, then added onto Commons by a PR account. After this photo was deleted for copyright violation per [1], an SPA re-uploaded and a different SPA added it to Matthew Halsall page. Graywalls (talk) 20:07, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Chubbles:, good catch. There seems to be a concerted effort placed across various artists' pages released by this label. Graywalls (talk) 16:49, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:35, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Borehole mining (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• BHMI (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Greg Abramov at Borehole Mining International, Inc. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I suspect that the username BHMI stands for "Borehole Mining International". I previously removed an unnecessary credit to that company and a link to that company's website in the external links. Today BHMI added another image with the same credit.

BHMI has identified themselves as "Greg Abramov". That named is used in references on both Borehole mining and in Draft:Geotechnology (created by BHMI). Counterfeit Purses (talk) 21:23, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Will the user name "Greg Abramov at Borehole Mining International, Inc." work, instead of BHMI? BHMI (talk) 16:06, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@BHMI I don't think that would be an acceptable username, but it is a secondary issue. The main concern is that you have an obvious conflict of interest. Have you read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest? Counterfeit Purses (talk) 02:17, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think that would, actually, be an acceptable username, per WP:ISU, which permits company names in usernames as long as the username also identifies a particular person. @BHMI, changes can be requested at Wikipedia:Changing username. Jahaza (talk) 04:12, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:31, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Nihil novi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Logologist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• various articles per below

I brought up COI editing on Nihil novi's talk page a couple days ago but the page was archived, leaving me without any response, so I bring it here for discussion.

A quick preface: a few weeks ago, I came across Perfection via the random article tool and after some talk page discussions I initiated an AfD because I took issue with its sourcing, or lack thereof. It was decided to keep the article but I ended up discovering what I think are likely COI violations. That article is maybe one of the most prominent examples but I must stress this isn’t some attempt at a follow-up or some sort of retaliation as I made this discovery fairly late into the AfD process and had no intention to use it as a new argument/piece of evidence (see my discussing with administrator(s) on my user talk about this).

NN=L=K

I am certain that Nihil novi (“NN”) and Logologist (“L”) are operated by the same person. There was a sockpuppet investigation raised a while ago. Some of the links now seem to be dead but I reckon what’s still there is quite compelling. I have additional reasons to believe they’re the same user:

• this instance where after a period of relative inactivity, L becomes active and involved in a dispute which includes NN and some other editors re the inclusion of images in an article, L ceases editing and resumes inactivity the same day;
• the amount of articles where NN and L remain primary contributors by a wide margin. Some are listed below, some others include (1), (2), (3), (4) (non-exhaustive list);
• very, very similarly worded paragraphs atop their user talk pages re maintaining continuity of discussion. I’m aware similarity in prose isn’t the most sound argument but the specific phrasing is quite telling.

L ceased editing many years ago. I’m not concerned about any sockpuppetry or whatnot but it’s still best to establish this link as makes the COI editing a bit more apparent.

As for the accounts’ association with Christopher Kasparek (“K”), there is this diff here, chiefly the “my English translation”, from which I think one can safely assume that NN is confirming that he is the translator in question who, if we look at the book (I found a copy on Internet Archive), is K. This section was recently removed then, as mentioned above, the whole talk archived.

I have liaised with a member of the COI volunteer team via email and while they did not deem this as WP:OUTING because NN identifies himself as the author, it was thought best to not use K’s full name so the above is the only time I’ll be doing it (as there’s not really any way to avoid it once).

A selection of possible COI violations

In no particular order:

• L & NN being primary contributors to the aforementioned Perfection article. The AfD/talk page gets into the nitty gritty of it all but the article is more or less derived entirely from K’s work. Whether or not the substantial amount of close paraphrasing also constitutes a copyright violation is above my pay grade – it’s a bit of a weird one because NN/L is paraphrasing his own work (which is in turn a translation of someone else’s work). Not super pertinent to the COI but a twice occurring argument from NN against the article being unbalanced/poorly sourced is that the author of the untranslated text is an authority who “wrote the book” on the subject matter – it’s hard for me to not see a bit of bias or vested interest here;
• L creating/being a primary contributor & NN being a primary contributor to the aforementioned article about K and also this article about a relative of K – self-explanatory;
• L creating/being a primary contributor & NN being a primary contributor to Pharaoh (Prus novel) where there’s a substantial amount of self-citing (including a fairly unencyclopaedic part in which another translator’s work is branded “incompetent” compared to K’s...).
• NN adding a para about K’s discovering/inventing “recombinant conceptualization” to List of multiple discoveries;
• NN adding K to the “notable people” subsection of a college;
• NN adding K to the “notable people” subsection of a city;
• Some of NN’s (and potentially L's?) contributions to Translation. This one’s a bit more of a maze to navigate via WikiBlame/rev history as the prose has morphed substantially over time (e.g. this addition has evolved to three paras cited to K) but a decent amount of self-citing remains in the present revision including one in which K’s stating that translators “have helped shape the very languages into which they have translated” has at some point made its way into the lead - as far as I can tell this is when it was first added in some form. I can’t comment too much on veracity of the actual statement (my own work in translation is limited) but when it’s someone stating their own opinion on the matter as if fact I feel it’s rather WP:UNDUE.

This is not all of them but I don’t want to go overboard and pick out any and every instance I can find - whether or not some of the more minor edits one can find when searching Wiki for references to K fall afoul of COI would depend on your interpretation of WP:SELFCITE, I suppose. ToeSchmoker (talk) 12:23, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

While ToeSchmoker (hereafter "TS") placed a notice on my talk page accusing me of "conflicts of interest", he did not state any allegations for me to respond to.

According to Wikipedia, a conflict of interest "[t]ypically relates to situations in which the personal interest of an individual... might adversely affect a duty owed to make decisions for the benefit of a third party." I submit that TS has not made a case for conflict of interest on my part. Rather, he shows a conflict of interest in connection with his disappointment at the Wikipedia community's decision rejecting his recent attempt to delete the "Perfection" article from Wikipedia.

There has been no time overlap between editing by L and NN. NN began editing in 2007 after L had ceased to edit. NN's revert of the "Translation" article to an earlier version by L in no way indicates a conflict of interest. It is merely a revert to an earlier version, which earlier version could equally well have been written by someone other than L.

The fact of L and NN each having both (at non-overlapping times) contributed to a number of the same articles, in no way constitutes a conflict of interest.

I do not see what TS's "outing" of L or NN contributes to TS's complaint of L's or NN's "conflict of interest". The Wikipedia community, in fact, condemns "outing" Wikipedia editors. ("Wikipedia's policy against harassment takes precedence over the conflict of interest guideline.")

I will leave to the Wikipedia community's consideration whether the existence of the articles about K or K's relative constitutes a conflict of interest – whether these articles "might adversely affect a duty owed to make decisions for the benefit of a third party."

The article on "Pharaoh (Prus novel)" cites articles by K which, again, in no way prejudice a third party. The author of the novel's 1902 translation, Jeremiah Curtin, is long-deceased and, in any case, had previously been shown, as K indicates in a cited article, to have been an inadequate translator from the Polish language.

The propriety of NN's inclusion of K in Wikipedia-article sections listing notable individuals is, again, best left to the judgment of others who are more familiar with K's contributions to the edification of the world community, including (but not limited to) readers of Wikipedia.

Nihil novi (talk) 20:41, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to lie, I didn't read this entire report. But I did read Christopher Kasparek, and it's in pretty rough shape. We have a citation to Amazon, and a citation to one of his own books. Without even getting into how to deal with the COI concerns, I think there's a strong argument for sending this to AfD, even if just under WP:TNT. There's no problem with COI if the article doesn't warrant inclusion anyways. MediaKyle (talk) 17:51, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why this is at COI at all; in fact, the most serious problem I see here is WP:OUTING. I don't see a clear problem with WP:SELFCITE, but issues of WP:UNDUE/WP:NPOV can be discussed in various articles, one by one. If and only if we reach consensus in several discussions that UNDUE/NPOV/COI have been violated, this can be escalated. I am familiar only with the issue of the Perfection article and I don't recall seeing such a problems there. As for issues with WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY and WP:GNG, WP:AFD can be used without prejudice anytime (and yes, that article is in a pretty poor shape, to say the least). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:47, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As I clearly stated, I'd liaised with the COI volunteer team over email before bringing this here. The administrator I spoke to didn't deem it outing because "the user idenfied themselves as the author of work that they linked to". I'm happy for the COI volunteer team to share the email chain with you provided they redact my name and email address.

I disagree that it's necessary to raise it at every article "one by one" before bringing it here when the crux of the matter is Nihil novi repeatedly adding material about himself across an array of articles. Yes, these articles have their own separate flaws (poorly sourced, unbalanced etc. etc.) which we can perhaps iron out in the future but there is a common thread in the COI issue so I have elected to raise that. Thanks. ToeSchmoker (talk) 11:14, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked into this more since my prior message, and the idea that Nihil novi does not have a COI seems pretty inconceivable to me with all the evidence that has been provided. That being said, I think Piotrus might be correct in that AfD is the only venue in which this can properly be dealt with, given the tools available to us at this time. See Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest#How to handle conflicts of interest - it says to send it to the COI noticeboard. Okay, well you did that. Now what? We don't seem to have any concrete policy against what this user is doing, other than to say that you "should disclose your COI", not even that you "must disclose your COI". WP:TOS doesn't appear to contain the phrase "conflict of interest". Even WP:SELFCITE is rather vague and subjective. Unless there was broad consensus that this user's edits were problematic enough to warrant some sort of administrative action, AfD seems like the only way to go for a lot of the involved articles. MediaKyle (talk) 11:50, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The content guideline WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY says: You should only edit a biography about yourself if you are removing unambiguous vandalism or clear-cut and serious violations of our biography of living persons policy. As such, admin action could be needed as Nihil Novi has continued editing his autobiography while this noticeboard query was open without acknowledging his COI on the TP. (This, after deleting his claim to be the person in question in discussion with Piotrus, who opines above.) Wikipedia is not a place where the nobles have special liberties. (cf. Nihil novi) -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 10:28, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting a little ridiculous now actually. There is now a see also section on the article containing about seventy articles, it seems to be all of them have citations to Kasparek. Are we just going to turn a blind eye to all this? MediaKyle (talk) 13:12, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Spring Education Group (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• NR12141988 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Bouncyball2019 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Breezy6508 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

These three editors are new and have declared their COI (it's their employer). They've gone through the article and substantially rewritten it. All three will work on the article in the same day, and generally it's good to have attention paid to quieter articles. However, I think it would benefit from some eyes to review the changes. Here's the current full diff from when the editing started a few weeks ago; this voucher program termination for Chinese ties and credit rating change during COVID are examples of removals that might be worth preserving. tedder (talk) 15:03, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This one doesn't sit well with me. Part of me says we should revert all those changes and request that they go through edit requests properly, as the NPOV of these edits is very questionable. MediaKyle (talk) 10:40, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Gaston Rivero (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• CraigAmstrong (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Shazam2020 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Bounty22surfen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Cat22Sparrow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Users have edited exclusively on this one article, inserting unsourced information. Users CraigAmstrong, Shazam2020 and Bounty22surfen claimed to be the authors of photos of the subject. 2A02:3037:205:7189:1087:3696:62AA:9F23 (talk) 10:48, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Studienstiftung (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (and all other scholarships)
• FortunateSons (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (and all other relevant user)

I'm not sure if I'm in the right place, so please direct me wherever I should go if there is an a better place to ask this: within Germany (and to a lesser degree, other German-speaking countries), certain students receive national level merit scholarships, which are either ideologically neutral or affiliated with a religious or political group. Those students regularly engage in 'recruitment' - unpaid ambassador positions to spread awareness (and improve access to the scholarships for people without privileged backgrounds). It's not paid (the scholarship money isn't tied to that function, and is instead a fixed or variable amount based on personal circumstances). However, I was wondering if this is a COI per se, or if it can be treated like the way current and former students editing about their Universities is, where it's not a COI unless there is a particularly close relationship to the subject that goes far beyond that of the 'average' member? FortunateSons (talk) 10:15, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My (unasked for) opinion: if their monetary reward is truly not influenced by their recruitment activities, then it's not paid editing.

However, if they are actively advocating for a particular institution and editing Wikipedia as part of that aim, then it's most definitely a COI. I would not trust that person to be an objective contributor, as they have secondary motives to contribute content that sounds favourable. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 19:44, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@KevinVD: has introduced major edits to the Good Article HNLMS De Ruyter (1935), with many of their new bare URL references having been written by the user or heavily features the user, which includes 'personal correspondence' with someone, and interview with himself, and an article the user wrote and appears to have self-published. I have ran out of reverts, and per KevinVD's request here, would bring the matter up at a noticeboard. GGOTCC 15:35, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Per the many red messages on this page, you are required to notify the editor via talk page when you bring them to this noticeboard; I have done so for you. GoldRomean (talk) 22:42, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, but I did do that on the talk page of the respective article since they are the ones who requested it. Is that not sufficient? GGOTCC 23:01, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, overlooked that, but I think user talk page is still needed; it makes sure the user can see it :) GoldRomean (talk) 01:20, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. Thank you for telling me! GGOTCC 01:23, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

KevinVD should not be citing himself, and as a COI editor, he should be making suggestions on the article talk page for unconnected editors to review the edit requests and after analyzing them, either make the edits or not. Exceptional claims should be independently sourced. Blogs, or his personal correspondence should not be used, especially for a GA. KevinVD should also follow WP guidelines for connected editors found at WP:COI and if there have been any financial remuneration for his work on the shipwreck, he should follow the guidance for paid editors. Netherzone (talk) 16:15, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've placed the standard COI template on KevinVD's talk page. If they have received any compensation for their work on the shipwreck through grants, donations, paid employment, in-kind sources or other, they must follow WP:PAID. Netherzone (talk) 17:14, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Tacmocc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Hakan Akbas (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hakan Akbas
• Draft:Crystal Williams (cosmetologist) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Draft:Manuela Kelley (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Tacmocc was kindly requested by Amigao to disclose their relationship with Hakan Akbas, but they have blanked the talk page and are creating more COI-related drafts, such as Draft:Crystal Williams (cosmetologist) and Draft:Manuela Kelley. More eyes requested. Gheus (talk) 00:56, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Gheus: The editor must be informed of this discussion by leaving the {{coin-notice}} message on their talk page. I will do it. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 19:31, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I will notify next time. Gheus (talk) 23:28, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

I believe the user is engaging in undisclosed paid editing, based on their username. I am not sure what counts as "personal information" so I am not sure how specific I am allowed to be here, but can email if necessary. The user is not responding to talk page messages. -- NotCharizard ^🗨 14:34, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think you've given us enough information to figure it out, and I agree that this is UPE. I will note that they were not informed of this discussion, so I put the required {{coin-notice}} message on their talk page. All of their edits were made in the span of 90 minutes; let's give them a chance to answer here or on the user talk page. If they still fail to respond, then it can be escalated further. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 19:25, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm new to this noticeboard so apologies in advance if I'm doing this wrong. I strongly suspect these following articles were created by undisclosed paid editing. The histories of these articles are also dominated by sockpuppets (see: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Chuckfinley94).

• Jeff Grant (attorney)
• White Collar Support Group
• Sam Mangel
• Craig Rothfeld

Could someone who is well-versed with the Notability guidelines help assess these articles and nominate them for deletion if you don't think they meet WP:N? I'm getting pretty annoyed that I have to basically file a sockpuppet report every couple of weeks now because the sockmaster keeps popping up to edit these articles. Please put these articles on your watchlist too if you can; any help is appreciated. Some1 (talk) 04:37, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• CapitaLand (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Jamboo2325 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Editor Jamboo2325 has consistently added promotional content about CapitaLand. While there is some improvement in sourcing, the references are primary sources. I had placed COI notice and done follow-ups with no responses. Various warnings had been put on talkpage but Jamboo2325 failed to reply in any kind. ~ JASWE (talk) 06:00, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Draft:Interval (2025 film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Draft:Bharatvarsh (Entrepreneur and Film Director) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• WPBharat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Seems to be a promo-only account. Username suggests close ties with the articles they have created Draft:Interval (2025 film) and Draft:Bharatvarsh (Entrepreneur and Film Director) which makes conflict of interest probable. Jonteemil (talk) 22:43, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

While I do agree that the promotion is quite obvious, I will note that Bharat is also the name of India in most of the country's languages, and thus a pretty common term. However, edits like this diff make it clear that they are only here to promote their film. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 00:36, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Meir Masri (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Lucien Janvier (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user is a WP:SPA with a little over 100 edits, the vast majority of which are on Meir Masri. Curiously, User talk:Meir Masri re-directs to User talk:Lucien Janvier. It would be great to get other sets of eyes on this one. Amigao (talk) 01:17, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Did you not look at the page history? "07:49, 21 February 2024 - Céréales Killer moved page User talk:Meir Masri to User talk:Lucien Janvier: Automatically moved page while renaming the user "Meir Masri" to "Lucien Janvier""

You also neglect to mention that before you posted here, the suer replied to you saying "Je n'ai aucun lien avec cette personne, mis à part le fait de suivre ses écrits et interventions télévisées, notamment sur I24NEWS. J'ai documenté sa page et m'étonne que mes modifications aient été effacées.", which translates as "I have no connection with this person, other than following their writings and television appearances, particularly on I24NEWS. I documented their page and am surprised that my edits were deleted." Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:44, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Talwar108
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Requesting protection for multiple pages due to repeated vandalism

This is a report of widespread promotional editing associated with the Talwar Gallery over a period of many years, first reported in the ANI thread above. A short list of accounts is included in the SPI report but there are likely many more. The list below is some of the articles identified so far:

• Talwar Gallery (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Alwar Balasubramaniam (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Alia Syed (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Ranjani Shettar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Nasreen Mohamedi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Rummana Hussain (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Allan deSouza (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Anjum Singh (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Arpita Singh (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Sheila Makhijani (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• N. N. Rimzon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Paramjit Singh (artist) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Valay Shende (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Nalini Malani (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Shambhavi Singh (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Navjot Altaf (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Zarina Bhimji (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• (Untitled) Blue Lady (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Reviewing the contributions of single-purpose accounts editing those pages may reveal more affected articles, but I did look pretty thoroughly. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:12, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm raising a conflict of interest concern regarding the article Sarah Lewitinn.

User User:LVLewitinn has identified himself (on-wiki and off-wiki) as someone with a COI with the article's subject, Sarah Lewitinn. He has been editing her biography heavily, including reverting neutral, well-sourced edits and rewriting/misrepresenting sources to inflate notability.

Most recently, he posted the following message to my user talk page after I made routine content edits to the article:

Knock it off
We get it. You don't like Sarah or Daniel. But maybe stop using Wikipedia to do that.
— User:LVLewitinn (talk) 20:22, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

Additionally, he blanked my entire user talk page shortly after posting the above comment, removing prior discussions:

• Talk page blanked: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:LegalTech&diff=prev&oldid=1300681095

This behavior appears to violate Wikipedia's expectations of civility and neutrality and reflects a clear conflict of interest. I posted a standard COI notice on his talk page and have not otherwise engaged.

I’m requesting input from uninvolved editors on whether this user should be formally asked to recuse from editing the article(s) and whether any other action (e.g., talk page restrictions or protection) might be appropriate.

Thanks, LegalTech (talk) 20:40, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@LegalTech, your "blanked my talkpage" link is wrong, I think you meant [8]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:15, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I will fix it. LegalTech (talk) 21:22, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@LegalTech Well, they're blocked now. Where did he identify himself as the brother on-wiki? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 04:31, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the update. In this edit summary, in which he says "I am the alleged person in this claim": https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sarah_Lewitinn&oldid=1300680154 LegalTech (talk) 11:43, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Per [9], that's at best an admission of COI, there's no "brother" there. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:49, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. Thanks for the follow-up. I inferred the user was subjet's brother based on the off-wiki source combined with their edit summary and similar username. Should I update the entry here to reflect that? LegalTech (talk) 12:01, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Probably moot but for future reference, WP:OUTING is a sensitive thing around here. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:06, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, [User:Gråbergs_Gråa_Sång] — I appreciate the heads-up about WP:OUTING. I didn’t mean to overstep, and I’ve updated the section title to stay focused on on-wiki conduct. I’ll be more mindful going forward. LegalTech (talk) 12:13, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Masood Khan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Adeel1143 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Editor has several times replaced the article with a version that reads promotional. Text includes Known for his sharp intellect, articulate diplomacy and emphasis on multilateralism, Khan has been a prominent advocate for peace, security, sustabinable development and rule-based world order and Masood Khan is recognized for his composure, eloquence, and multilateral acumen. Sourcing is patchy and includes external links. Edits have been reverted by me and by Cluebot, but the editor has continued to edit the article. I have posted on their Talk page about CoI. Editor first said these are inputs are directly consulted with the person and then I don't have any relationship with the personality. Tacyarg (talk) 07:56, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"directly consulted" means that they are taken from the references and detailed one from his profile used in WPO and different interview Adeel1143 (talk) 09:10, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for joining the discussion. You also said it was personally consulted by the person whose bio i am updating. Tacyarg (talk) 13:30, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Robert A. Funk (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 192.136.113.97 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The IP is registered to Mr. Funk's company (Express Employment Professionals) and has been removing reliably sourced information which paints the company in a bad light.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 15:26, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is sort of an update to what I have done previously on this noticeboard.

This is in regards to this draft Draft:Cadotte Family and other articles connected to it and such. Today my dad shown me a document from the United States federal government.

This document has something to do with the Indian money that he received and this document also shown the name one of the Cadottes on it. (I do not wanna say exactly the name of this person on this document because I don’t wanna reveal the identity of me or my father. But if you wanna see this document, I can private email it to you.)

Look I know I am being a bit weird about this and many contributors might find it a bit annoying that I am writing about ancestry.

But this document justifies why I had to declare COI, because it shows that people who are still alive today get benefits from this. This all goes above and beyond the amount of cool and interesting people I am related to.

My dad literally gets money from the federal government because of this.CycoMa2 (talk) 04:56, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t know how or when he starting getting Indian money. This is the first time he ever told about him getting Indian money.

I have looked through his text messages when he wasn’t looking and it appears he struggled trying to get Indian money in the past. But now it appears he was able to get it. CycoMa2 (talk) 05:03, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]