Jump to content

Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Conflict of interest

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Sanskari (talk | contribs) at 09:52, 29 February 2020 (→North East Delhi riots: added update). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

"WP:COIN" redirects here. For the WikiProject on articles about coins, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Numismatics.
    Welcome to Conflict of interest Noticeboard (COIN)
    Shortcuts
    Sections older than 14 days archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

    Click here to purge this page
    (For help, see Wikipedia:Purge)
    This Conflict of interest/Noticeboard (COIN) page is for determining whether a specific editor has a conflict of interest (COI) for a specific article and whether an edit by a COIN-declared COI editor meets a requirement of the Conflict of Interest guideline. A conflict of interest may occur when an editor has a close personal or business connection with article topics. Post here if you are concerned that an editor has a COI, and is using Wikipedia to promote their own interests at the expense of neutrality. For content disputes, try proposing changes at the article talk page first and otherwise follow the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution procedural policy.
    You must notify any editor who is the subject of a discussion. You may use {{subst:coin-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.
    Additional notes:
    • This page should only be used when ordinary talk page discussion has been attempted and failed to resolve the issue, such as when an editor has repeatedly added problematic material over an extended period.
    • Do not post personal information about other editors here without their permission. Non-public evidence of a conflict of interest can be emailed to paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org for review by a functionary. If in doubt, you can contact an individual functionary or the Arbitration Committee privately for advice.
    • The COI guideline does not absolutely prohibit people with a connection to a subject from editing articles on that subject. Editors who have such a connection can still comply with the COI guideline by discussing proposed article changes first, or by making uncontroversial edits. COI allegations should not be used as a "trump card" in disputes over article content. However, paid editing without disclosure is prohibited. Consider using the template series {{Uw-paid1}} through {{Uw-paid4}}.
    • Your report or advice request regarding COI incidents should include diff links and focus on one or more items in the COI guideline. In response, COIN may determine whether a specific editor has a COI for a specific article. There are three possible outcomes to your COIN request:
    1. COIN consensus determines that an editor has a COI for a specific article. In response, the relevant article talk pages may be tagged with {{Connected contributor}}, the article page may be tagged with {{COI}}, and/or the user may be warned via {{subst:uw-coi|Article}}.
    2. COIN consensus determines that an editor does not have a COI for a specific article. In response, editors should refrain from further accusing that editor of having a conflict of interest. Feel free to repost at COIN if additional COI evidence comes to light that was not previously addressed.
    3. There is no COIN consensus. Here, Lowercase sigmabot III will automatically archive the thread when it is older than 14 days.
    • Once COIN declares that an editor has a COI for a specific article, COIN (or a variety of other noticeboards) may be used to determine whether an edit by a COIN-declared COI editor meets a requirement of the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest guideline.
    To begin a new discussion, enter the name of the relevant article below:
    Search the COI noticeboard archives
    Help answer requested edits
    Category:Wikipedia conflict of interest edit requests is where COI editors have placed the {{edit COI}} template:
    Wikipedia conflict of interest edit requests
    Talk:260 Collins
    Talk:American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers
    Talk:Pamela Anderson
    Talk:Moshe Bar (neuroscientist)
    Talk:BEE Japan
    Talk:Edi Birsan
    Talk:Adam Boehler
    Talk:Captions (app)
    Talk:Casualty Actuarial Society
    Talk:Cofra Holding
    Talk:Cohen Milstein
    Talk:Commvault
    Talk:Chris Daniels (musician)
    Talk:DEGIRO
    Talk:Dell Technologies
    Talk:Michael Dell
    Talk:Nina L. Diaz
    Talk:Element (software)
    Talk:Etraveli Group
    Talk:Fitch Ratings
    Talk:Florida Power & Light
    Talk:Gaza genocide
    Talk:Gentlemen Prefer Blondes (novel)
    Talk:Nicholas Gotsell
    Talk:Grizzly Creek Fire
    Talk:Henley & Partners
    Talk:Andrew Hoffman
    Talk:Infillion
    Talk:Insight Meditation Society
    Talk:Daymond John
    Talk:Norma Kamali
    Talk:Khalili Foundation
    Talk:David Lalloo
    Talk:Dafna Lemish
    Talk:Alexa Meade
    Talk:Metro AG
    Talk:Monetary policy
    Talk:Alberto Musalem
    Talk:NAPA Auto Parts
    Talk:NextEra Energy
    Talk:PetSmart Charities
    Talk:Qu Dongyu
    User talk:Robinchen90
    Talk:Sharp HealthCare
    Talk:Louise Showe
    Talk:Shuntarō Tanikawa
    Talk:Antonio D. Tillis
    Talk:Lorraine Twohill
    Talk:University of Toronto Faculty of Arts and Science
    Talk:Uppsala Monitoring Centre
    Talk:Year Up
    Talk:Zions Bancorporation

    Possible UPE by Nappiamore

    Nappiamore is not a regular editor, (s)he only edits when they need to post an article which is common in paid editors. From March to October 2019 (s)he uploaded three promotional images at commons-wiki and posted four articles and none of them looks like created by a brand new user. I tried, but can't find those images online, this suggests a close connection between the subject and the uploader so, I feel their articles must be reviewed for notability, verifiability, and neutral point of view and sent to AFD if they don’t appear to be notable. Thank you. GSS 💬 04:56, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    The images they uploaded are interesting. All three are marked "own work" but then have two different authors:Renae Maihi for one and Catya Plate for the two files with "plate" int heir name. One file, Catya Plate.jpg has metadata that says "© Jason Walz". So at minimum, some deletions are in order.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 07:18, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I have tagged File:Catya Plate.jpg for SD as per the metadata and the other two for OTRS permission. The user is inactive since October last year but, there is definitely a case of UPE. GSS 💬 08:47, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked. MER-C 20:30, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Experts-Exchange

    Bkay was warned about COI and undisclosed paid editing. Bkay then stopped, and Beedee started inserting some of the identical language from Bkay's previous promotional edits. No disclosure from either account.  Orange Mike | Talk 21:52, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    The edits were first made by an IP. I'm tempted to semi protect the article and block both accounts from editing mainspace until they make the necessary COI disclosures. That said, the article is in pretty bad shape. The two AFDs it has survived both identified better sources, but they aren't currently in the article. it would be nice to see the article improve, and protecting it works against that. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 22:54, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Those have to be socks. Reported.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:42, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Orangemike: A CU has confirmed that they are socks, which I guess was obvious. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 06:45, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Pete Hawkes

    The behaviour reported at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_128#Pete_Hawkes started up again as soon as the page protection was lifted. In addition to the sockpuppets / throwaway usernames listed there, there are four new ones listed above. I recommend permanent semi-protection of the page now, as this behaviour will apparently continue indefinitely. --Slashme (talk) 14:21, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    It is interesting that Dudeoftheuniverse's edits consist almost entirely of arguing about the use of the COI template. The only substantive edit they ever made to the article was this one. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:37, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The documentation of {{COI}} makes clear (highlighting in original): "if you place this tag, you should promptly start a discussion on the article's talk page to explain what is non-neutral about the article". This requirement is not met; and as the documentation continues: "If you do not start this discussion, then any editor is justified in removing the tag without warning." Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:57, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Very good point! --Slashme (talk) 08:52, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The COI discussion was actually placed on the talk page November 28, 2019 by Melcous.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:22, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    A discussion was placed there; it merely repeats the vague and unsubstantiated accusation, and fails to meet the highlighted requirement "to explain what is non-neutral about the article". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:28, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Selman Akbulut

    Editor appears to have a strong conflict of interest or bias on behalf of the subject of the article, Dr. Akbulut:

    • User has either edited Selman Akbulut or to pages related to his editing (such as the edit warring noticeboard about his behavior.) One exception being an edit to an article on the Turkish Mathematical Society.
    • User participated in an edit war to remove a news article about the disciplinary action against Akbulut, reverting links to a mainstream news article [1], [2], [3], [4].
    • After receiving a notice about edit warring, user then began removing information from the mainstream news article about the Akbulut attacking individuals via email. They substituted links to Akbulut's personal website, and a site called "stopacademicabuse.com" which was created a few months after the accusations and is only about the subject of the article (not academic abuse in general). They also added improperly sourced content (saying mathematicians around the world are concerned but using the aforementioned "stopacademicabuse.com" site as proof, even though it does not meet WP:SOURCES.) [5], [6], [7].
    • Attempts to discuss this with them during the first edit war (including a warning) resulted in no response; instead they are accusing editors who are reverting these changes of being part of a "smear campaign" [8] and that the sourced material is "wrong/baseless" [9] and that media coverage cannot be presented as a fact [10].
    • It seems clear (WP:DUCK) that the editor is strongly biased with a conflict of interest. Mr. Vernon (talk) 21:25, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • And just to put the nail in this coffin: the editor's handle is [REDACTED - Oshwah] --Mr. Vernon (talk) 22:02, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Clear guidance has now been left at Eylem Z Yildiz's talk page (permalink). A COI declaration (or a clear refutation) is expected before the editor attempts any further editing of the article. Edit requests should be used by all users with a strong COI. Nick Moyes (talk) 01:26, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    For the record, they have declared that they do not have a conflict of interest (with "either party", I assume Dr. Akbulut or MSU.)[11]. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 04:49, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Emma Dalmayne

    This article is a bit of a mess:

    • It went through AfC process by User:Winchswan who has made no significant edits outside of this article.
    • IP edited the article and in the edit summary here claimed to be the subject of the article.
    • An account was created using the name of the article and continued adding to the article.

    I'm not sure if they are notable, and I can't be sure if there are socks involved here, but at least two of the users involved have a COI. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 18:21, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Looks very suspicious. The IP is registered to the UK via BT Broadband. The IP and Emma are definitely related. Winchswan may me a meat puppet or a sock. July 8th was the last edit for Winchswan. Seems that it was a single purpose account to create the article. Possible SPI, but not quite sure. AmericanAir88(talk) 20:05, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    AmericanAir88 Should I open up an SPI on this? --Mr. Vernon (talk) 06:35, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mr. Vernon: I am not really sure. The article is at AfD and if the consensus is delete, there will be more base for the contributions. If they continue editing in the future or recreate the article, then a SPI may be necessary. The Ip should maybe be reported though for spam and socking. What do you think? AmericanAir88(talk) 13:27, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    OK. I will report the IP at least. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 14:43, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Coconutmediabox

    This handle belongs to the production house as is obvious from the username. Multiple editors have warned the user and asked to disclose paid editing but the user has failed to reply or disclose. Should be blocked. Coderzombie (talk) 11:55, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    MNB9911 sockfarm and Pro Creative Writers

    Referring back to Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_151#Wikipedia_Procreative_Writers. It turns out that at least one article they used as a sample is Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MNB9911 – 27 confirmed sockpuppets. Maybe time to compile a list of article creations of this bunch... ☆ Bri (talk) 02:41, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Added another account, not (yet) roped in to the sockfarm, who helped on a businessperson draft. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:05, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Marmalade Game Studio

    As a frequent editor of video game-related articles and an active member of WP:VG, I noticed that the edits by Kiki99xtra all concern UK video game developer Marmalade Game Studio, an article they also created. While I do believe the studio meets the GNG threshold (see WP:VG/RS and the custom Google search engine), the article was POV-pushing previously. Marmalade Game Studio makes digital game adaptations of classic board games, like Monopoly, Cluedo (Clue in North America) and The Game of Life; Kiki99xtra also added information about the studio on the articles on those board games, like here and here. They are also working on Draft:The Game of Life: 2016 Edition.

    Now, of course this could all mean nothing. Perhaps Kiki99xtra is just a huge fan of Marmalade Game Studios or their games. But since their first edit was on January 27 and every single one concerns Marmalade Game Studio somehow, it seems rather COI-ish. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 08:02, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    It seems that Kiki99xtra's userpage has a COI template that isn't complete. It has almost been a month since it was edited. AmericanAir88(talk) 21:25, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow, okay, I should've spotted that! Sorry everyone. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 08:29, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Cleveroad

    This editor has been warned about his or her potential COI instances previously. Their edits solely pertain to software development, including the linked article about a Ukrainian development company. They are attempting to sway the company's AfD on its discussion page. He or she has not acknowledged our COI policies or made the required disclosure WP:PAID. BonkHindrance (talk) 17:18, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    On what basis have you gone from "potential COI" to "required disclosure"? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:31, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Pigsonthewing, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Harrison_Jessie perhaps? Vexations (talk) 19:39, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, this was my reason for that. BonkHindrance (talk) 19:54, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Please explain the connection. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:02, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Andy Mabbett, what should I do? I was also notified. --Moana122 (talk) 07:50, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Moana122: If you have a conflict of interest (including, but not limited to, being paid to edit) you should declare it as advised on your talk page. However, such a declaration is not required, if there is no conflict of interest. If you need more help, ask at WP:Teahouse. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:43, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Pigsonthewing, such a declaration is not required (followed by a conditional) can easily be misinterpreted. I'm not required to make a declaration that I do not have a conflict of interest for every article I edit. But when challenged, with {{uw-paid}} for example, even if I don't have a conflict of interest, I should cease editing until I have clarified that I do not have a conflict of interest. Vexations (talk) 10:48, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Under which policy? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:15, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Pigsonthewing, under established consensus. The uw-paid1 template says so since 22 June 2015
    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Uw-paid1&diff=next&oldid=668203800&diffmode=source There was a deletion discussion archived at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 October 30 and consensus was to keep. Vexations (talk) 12:34, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    As I thought: no policy. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:10, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Pigsonthewing, WP:CONSENSUS is policy. Vexations (talk) 13:15, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    As I thought: no policy says a user, when challenged, should cease editing until they have clarified that they do not have a conflict of interest. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:41, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Pigsonthewing: what's the point of coming here to argue with volunteer editors editors who are making good faith efforts to address COI issues?ThatMontrealIP (talk) 22:23, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't answer questions that are based on false premises. And don't mess with my sig. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:21, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Pigsonthewing perhaps you want to raise your objections to the statement "do not edit further until you answer this message" in {{uw-paid1}}, as it remains there, and in escalating urgency in {{uw-paid2}}, {{uw-paid3}} and {{uw-paid4}}, I for one, will be happy to support any RfC that makes disclosure when challenged on a potential CoI mandatory. I support an immediate block for refusing to respond to such claims. In fact, I support making a CoI statement mandatory at the time of registration, making inclusion on a user page mandatory and linking to it from the signature. Vexations (talk) 23:29, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    As you're so keen on making people answer questions, perhaps you could answer the one I put to you above, and repeated below? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:54, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Pigsonthewing: I have no idea what you mean by messing with your sig. Anyway, it seems plain that you are just at COIN (at least form every other post you have made to this version of the page) to challenge the editors trying to get something done, which to me seems unproductive and mildly disruptive. If you do not like the way COIN operates, perhaps you have pages that need editing somewhere?ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:09, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm even less interested in your baseless imaginings about my motivations than in questions involving false premises, but see here for your abuse of my sig. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:13, 23 February 2020 (UTC).[reply]
    Pigsonthewing Looks to me like a case of "control/command + c" copy-and-paste of your username gone awry, rather than any sort of abuse. Both of you are very experienced editors and a little AGF is usually a good idea. Edwardx (talk) 20:39, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Pigsonthewing that was a copy paste error, obviously. Thanks for your other warm comments and friendy demeanour.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 21:24, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    "Please explain the connection." Tumbleweed... Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:56, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Stockton University

    WP:SPA for Stockton University and related pages. Undisclosed COI, even after warning. BonkHindrance (talk) 20:57, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Hilligermr

    Every edit made by this user has been to insert the name of Walter Hilliger and links to his works into an article. - LuckyLouie (talk) 03:40, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    The edits insert a reference to an article linked to an external source in the Times of Israel, which features a comparison of the manna in a blog with photos and videos of a research made since 2011.
    If the proposed interpretation or the source itself is the problem of the edit, there is a suspicion of antisemitic bias behind the reversals because such stringent criteria to exclude that source was only applied to Walter Hilliger's contribution and not to other disregarded sources with missing links and references. Whether the author himself or someone else inserts the name of the author contribution it doesn't alter the value of the contributions. The sources of the article are verifiable and advance the knowledge of the topic featured in the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:CB20:40FD:3D00:E4E9:E206:25B2:CBC1 (talk • contribs)
    Wikipedia seeks to present the mainstream scholarly view based on (ideally secondary) reliable sources. Self-published sources are sometimes acceptable for basic non-controversial material, or when the author is a reknown expert/scholar in the field. Even experts have to be careful about introducing citations to their own works, or editing topics about themselves, etc. I have left a standard message on your user page about conflict of interest management on Wikipedia. —PaleoNeonate – 10:10, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Peter Linus

    Above accounts likely connected to each other and article subject. Removal of COI/PEACOCK tags, self-promotion. MB 06:31, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    The page was not created by the article subject and is in no way related to the article subject. However, the editor used a name similar to the article subject's name as its page username. The username name is currently being changed to fixed this issue.
    Kindly suggest other ways this issue can be fixed.
    PITA LINUS 06:37, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    United States Army Armor School

    Block evasion, sock- or meatpuppetry, ownership assertion. Page protected for 2 weeks, cleanup help by experienced editors welcome. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:22, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    That turned out to be an effective measure. After a short discussion on my talk page, I have invited Hinch32, who has commendably disclosed their conflict of interest, to make edit requests on the article's talk page. I'm happily looking forward to this. Independently of any such requests, I guess the article could still use copyediting and a stricter implementation of the verifiability policy. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:17, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Temple University

    This single-purpose editor appears to have a connection to the subject of this article but refuses to address the topic despite warnings and a direct question on his or her User Talk page. ElKevbo (talk) 18:30, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • I have placed a {{uw-paid}} notice on Stella's talk page, and added verbiage to the effect that this is a final warning. It's blatantly obvious (to me anyway) that this is a conflict of interest editor, and is likely performing edits as part of their job at Temple. Also of note; Stella added File:20171005 night owl 014.jpg to the article. I've nominated this image for deletion on Commons as it is a copyright violation due to freedom of panorama issues. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:58, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Editor blocked. They had enough warnings; having changed their username after the first one indicates that at very least the first warning has been read and not understood or ignored in this regard. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:04, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Kenneth_Arnold

    This is appears to be a WP:SPA dedicated to editing the article of her father. Phuzion (talk) 20:51, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    The first notice said all that. What was the point of the second notice? And then there's the irrelevance of the corporate/employer warnings. If you knew it was the daughter, why include the irrelevant? It makes us look like a bureaucracy. 24.104.194.39 (talk) 00:04, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
            • Because, frankly, I didn't see it. I saw a welcome notice, and a notice about this discussion. I see now there's a {{welcome-coi}} notice, which is different than the usual {{welcome}}. I was acting out of concern for the editor in that they had not been notified about conflict of interest issues, and instead were now the subject of a conversation without knowing why. I thought I was being helpful. If you think otherwise, fine, but that was my intent. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:20, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment ignoring the COI for now, what is the template for "this article is a badly sourced pile of tin hat conspiracy theories?" I just removed 6K or garbage from it and there is still probably another 10K or junk source to crackpot UFO blogs.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:38, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Imogen Cooper

    Takeover and rewrite of the article today, without sources. Editor appears to be the subject's husband. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 01:11, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    How do you know they are the subject's husband? We avoid WP:OUTING here unless there has been a voluntarily disclosure.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:28, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    (It’s 2601, away from home today) That the username is the same as the subject’s spouse wasn’t difficult to ascertain. It’s a rather public self-disclosure. However, I understand the issue. If my comment violates policy, I ask that it be rev/deleted, and will accept any appropriate disciplinary actions. 2600:387:5:807:0:0:0:1D (talk) 16:59, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess "appears to be" is vague enough...ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:04, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Southern Asset Management (and others)

    I suspect a COI and undisclosed paid editor. The articles are a immaculately referenced and the articles seem rather promotional. All the articles listed are for companies/organizations, bar the SEED AWARD, the kind that would want to pay an editor to push their company in a good light. Regards, Willbb234Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 17:39, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • I took a look at Southern Asset Management. I wouldn't call that one well referenced anyway. In fact, it's poorly referenced. Most of the references are either behind paywalls, don't mention the organization at all, or barely mention it. The content of this article doesn't strike me as a notable entity. Sure, it exists, but notable? No. As to the editor; account created in April, but didn't start editing until September, with a burst of 50+ edits in two days. After that, outside of a single edit to their user page (to create it), it's been nothing but new articles. I suspect this is a throwaway account. Patrolling new pages, you see this a lot. Articles (and drafts) get created and a ton of references are added to give them the air of being notable, or at least difficult to delete right off, so people run off and don't touch them. Easy to create, difficult to delete, and the paid editors (whether this one is or not) make off with the money. In this case, the editor is fitting the profile of what we would expect from a paid editor. We need better tools for managing this general issue. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:18, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      What I'd love to see is some kind of way of checking how long someone spent editing an article between clicking "edit" and "submit" (maybe with a counter for how many times they previewed, too). Not perfect, but if a brand new editor writes a perfect 10kb article in under a minute without even clicking preview, I would be a tad suspicious. creffpublic a creffett franchise (talk to the boss) 19:41, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Hammersoft when writing this I did at first think it would be appropriate to say 'immaculately' as the referencing initially seems very good, immaculate even, but then actually turns out to be poor. Thanks for your comments and I definitely agree that we should be less restricted in dealing with cases like this. Regards, Willbb234Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 21:55, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      I agree that these look suspiciously like refbombed UPE. I'm going to quarantine them in draftspace pending a response from the editor. creffett (talk) 23:49, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Elliot Fletcher

    Resolved independently by users at the talk and user talk pages. AGK ■ 08:02, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Editor is the article subject Declaration. They also contacted OTRS VRTS ticket # 2016080310001511. I also left a COI warning message on their talk page. It also seems that this account Elliot.fletch (talk · contribs · count) is a sockmaster for the above account. - FlightTime (open channel) 01:01, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    While drafting this report Elliot.fletch left a message on my talk page. - FlightTime (open channel) 01:22, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Obvious sock is obvious. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 02:34, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Given that the operator of the I96 account declared their identity, as shown above, and did so with their first edit, how is this an "obvious sock"? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:45, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Edith Covensky

    Months of promotional edits here. I've removed a ton of author testimonials, and multiple issues remain. Needs more eyes. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:35, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Editor also removed a COI notice on the page today. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 03:58, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Now blocked 24 hours due to their removal of the COI template from the article. This user has never replied to any messages. EdJohnston (talk) 04:09, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Flchans, Maryna Tkachuk

    Would someone like to take a look at this? There seems to be no way of communicating to User:Flchans that it is not appropriate to continue editing Maryna Tkachuk now that the draft has been accepted and moved to mainspace. The user wrote here "This is an institutional effort to provide biographical facts about its notable faculty/administration", and was able to predict that OTRS permission would be provided for the text and photograph in the article, so there's no room for doubt about a close connection – it doesn't seem remotely productive to speculate whether it is a paid employee or the subject herself actually making the edits. More eyes please! Oh, I'm far from convinced that she is even notable – her citations on Scholar are remarkably low (this could be because Google doesn't cope well with Ukrainian publications, however). Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:04, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    The fact that the subject is the dean of their department is enough to satisfy WP:PROF, however I'm just about ready to wash my hands completely of this. User has been pretty abusive on my talk page and continues to just ignore all warnings and do whatever they want. Their unbridled passion in regard to this article is more than enough to substantially prove they have a close connection to the subject and need to be limited in what edits they can make to the page, at least temporarily. Sulfurboy (talk) 17:10, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Have I mentioned how much I love it when editors drag out the tired "I thought this was an encyclopedia anyone can edit, but you're making that dream suffer by not letting me do what I want" argument? Concur that this is probable COI, almost every edit they've made both here and on ukwiki relates to Maryna Tkachuk. No comment on notability, haven't reviewed deeply enough to have anything useful to say there. Seems that they're packing up their toys and leaving based on their response to the edit-warring report, but worth keeping an eye on this for a little while in case they change their mind. creffpublic a creffett franchise (talk to the boss) 17:40, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello guys. How do I best adress this? Straight to the point - I have no personal stake in the article being published or not published here on English Wikipedia. You can even go ahead and outright delete it forever if you beleive this is for the greater good of the Wikipedia. The article is based on the publicly available sources, some of which are related to their subject, and there's been an article in Ukrainian in existince for over a year. Throughout my experience here on English Wikipedia I only face wild assumptions, false claims and what I can perceive as personal attacks. It is amusing to see someone with no knowledge of Ukraine and its language (and probably philosophy as well) seriously discussing notability of the article. My "unbrindled passion" in refuting this claims only comes from my personality - I hate being accused of something I never did.

    Way I see it, by now this escalated into an effort to find a "legitimate" way to take action against the article or me, or both. This effort has been generally going in 3 directions: 1) legality/copyright - the battle on this front has already been lost for JLAN, Sulfurboy and the like after the proper declarations were issued; 2) notability - I struggle how people of no knowledge/authority of the matter will decide on a notability on that - but I'd like to refer you here - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_University_of_Kyiv-Mohyla_Academy#Reputation ; this article was not created by me so you will probably view it as a good enough source. Now tell me, is the dean of the faculty that is "nationally the strongest in humanities" notable enough to be placed here? I dearly hope so; and finally 3) possible COI, which also finds no proof other than wild assumptions and unbacked claims. I mentioned several times I am not paid for this and such claims unless proves are balderdash. Best. Flchans (talk) 17:48, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @Flchans: Thanks for your note. You actually do not need to be paid by someone to edit in order to to have a conflict on Wikipedia. We define a conflict of interest as, yes, paid editing, but also someone who knows the subject or is connected tot hem in some way. Could you just confirm that you do not know the subject or are connected to her, personally or institutionally? Thanks. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:58, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Sam Ayoub

    I believe this user (Kirsh80) to be the individual this page is about (Sam Ayoub), or someone working for them. The page is about a rugby league manager. Every edit made by this user has been to update pages to include hyperlinks to the individuals personal linkedin page and the individuals personal business website. This is clearly promotional. The users most recent edit is predominantly self promotional of Sam Ayoub, and describes the individuals personal business and its practices, while also linking to the personal website again. It provided no citation

    Juan Branco manipulation in Le Figaro

    There was a article a few days ago titled "Sur Wikipédia, les vies rêvées de Juan Branco" ("On Wikipedia, the dreamed lives of Juan Franco"), in Le Figaro on the Juan Branco page. The french community have been discussing that on the talk page of the article among others, and a warning was placed on the english talk page. While self promotion is nothing new, that has been going on since a long time, with sock puppets allegations, repeated edit warring, push to create page since years, and even a story of email to a employer to get a contributor fired. So we figured this would warrant a more visible communication to the community as well, since the english and spanish Wikipedias were also impacted. --Misc (talk) 15:49, 25 February 2020 (UTC) Copied from VP:M and trimmed - Bri.public (talk) 16:38, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Farid Khan (tennis)

    All edits by this editor and the associated IPs are about Farid Khan and have a strong bias about the subject of the article. These accounts have been added content/references that violate WP:BLP and WP:RS. One of the IPs tried to remove the AfD tag from the article. --BonkHindrance (talk) 20:55, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Pro-fossil fuel edits ?

    I was recently asked by a journalist whether our articles are edited by people who seem to be from the fossil fuel industry, defending fossil fuels. Can any of you think of good examples of editing that show a clear pro-polluter POV? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 21:05, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Ollie Farr - request for review

    Hi all, based on their editing patterns, I was suspicious that Ollie Farr might be an undisclosed paid editor. I gave them a paid warning and tagged the article as suspected UPE. They have denied both being paid and having a COI. I'm not entirely convinced, so I'm bringing the discussion here for further review. My suspicion is primarily based on the near-perfect BLP draft being cranked out as edit number 13 and the commonalities of the draft article with previous paid/COI bios. There are a couple other things that tipped me which I'd rather not go into on a public discussion board; I'm willing to disclose them to administrators via email if needed. creffett (talk) 00:54, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    The Sweatman draft is a big puffy promotional CV.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:26, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Aquila Hotels & Resorts

    I don't really have the time to deal with this one, but the editor in question seems good faith, though has a clear and strong conflict of interest that is heavily biasing their editing on this topic.

    Article: Draft:Aquila Hotels & Resorts

    I suspect it is notable, but the derth of refs need to be sorted and paired down (removing all the promo ones), and the content needs to be half nuked to remove all the promotionalism. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)(click me!) 03:55, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I've fixed your links above, and notified the user of this discussion (see policy at top of page. Re the draft, I would not worry too much as it is in draft, and there is a prominent note warning AFC reviewers and others that it has been previously deleted multiple times. Not to mention that something as bad as this article this will never pass AFC! Thanks.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:22, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    ThatMontrealIP, exactly. Another notable topic that likely will get salted because of COI editor. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)(click me!) 04:27, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    ThatMontrealIP, Can't we just stubify it? — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)(click me!) 04:27, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Insertcleverphrasehere:, OK I see what you mean now. If you think it is notable and are interested, why not just stub it and move it to article space with decent sourcing? That would be my strategy were I interested in the topic. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:30, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    ThatMontrealIP, I don't personally care. I guess I am disillusioned by the system a bit. (After commenting on the 'draft space' discussion curently going on over at the Village pump). — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)(click me!) 04:38, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't let one draft get you down! There are millions of others for that.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 05:01, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Duke of Northern Ireland

    User name is the same as the subject of the above article. The editor has also added this 'office'? to Dukes in the United Kingdom and List of dukes in the peerages of Britain and Ireland (reverted from latter). Leaving aside the question of whether this Dukedom is real or not, the editor appears to have a conflict of inteest. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 09:58, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    User Jstowmoulden provided proof for COI with the edit summary "Removed duplicate page linking my direct user page of which my Official Duke page is under its account" for the edit Special:Permalink/942865664. --OrestesLebt (talk) 11:09, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The named user is perpetuating a hoax about himself and has been blocked. 331dot (talk) 11:10, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Just saw it, thanks 331dot. --OrestesLebt (talk) 11:33, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Apparently, the "real" Duke of Castle Rock is a Great Dane. Impressive pedigree, though. I wonder how "he" types this with those big paws of his. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:57, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Draft:Pure Planet

    There is a history of apparent promotional editing on behalf of this company going back to 2011. The titles Draft:Pure Planet and Pure Planet have been salted against creation due to previous spamming. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:28, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    At this point we can't determine whether there is one human using three accounts or three humans using three accounts with one paymaster, but it probably doesn't matter. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:29, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Evergreen Valley College

    This editor has explicitly acknowledged working as a "member of the marketing team" for the subject but has not made any other attempt to abide by WP:PAID or WP:COI despite multiple, explicit warnings posted to User Talk. ElKevbo (talk) 19:51, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    The edit summary seems to meet the disclosure rules for paid editing, and the edits I can see are minor factual items.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 13:33, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Judith Cloud

    WP:SPA account, adding unsourced, unencyclopedic content and removing what little is sourced. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 05:36, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    An edit from last year was reverted as a copyright violation, so rev/deletion may be necessary. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 05:41, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Fankaar

    Blatantly self-promotional draft article creator, no prima facie COI disclosure.   — Jeff G. ツ 12:16, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Da Vinci Globe

    The edit is clearly a WP:SPA single purpose account, only editing about material connected with Stafaan Missinne, the person who allegedly identified an old globe as being by Da Vinci. The article in question had and may still have a lot of material copied from Missinne's book[12] and Talk:Da Vinci Globe. That's not enough evidence to prove a coi of course. But there's the images. File:The Leonardo da Vinci Globe, 1504, Photo by Geert Verhoeven, © Stefaan Missinne 2018.png says ©Stefaan Missinne it also says own work by David Guam. Looking at some other images uploaded by Guam, the CT scan at File:Counterweight Da Vinci Globe.jpg is the scanner's property, isn't it? And that's copyright to Missinne but uploaded by DavidGuam. And how can the photo at File:The Leonardo da Vinci Globe, 1504, Photo by Geert Verhoeven, © Stefaan Missinne 2018.png be copyright to Missinne but Guam's own work? Or File:Schmidt da Vinci Globe.jpg? I asked Davidguam about any possible relationship but they haven't replied although they've edited since. Doug Weller talk 14:31, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    See also c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Schmidt da Vinci Globe.jpg. Doug Weller talk 15:27, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Multiple articles

    Trishneet wrote on their userpage recently that they work for Rudhra Technologies, a digital marketing company, however despite warnings and requests for disclosure by myself and Discospinster they've failed to follow WP:PAID and do the actual disclosure and have gamed their articles, without AFC review into mainspace. Ashish Rudhra, per their own draft is the owner of Rudhra Technologies and nearly every article they've written is a client, a fact that they are now trying to hide. I suspect the rest are as well. I think after several warnings, this is grounds for a block when combined with the fact that they've now recreated at least four articles by past paid editing farms:

    Now they're disruptively removing tags despite the very obvious policy and tou violation and trying to obfuscate their involvement by claiming "it was an accident". Praxidicae (talk) 14:49, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @Trishneet Arora India: How is it exactly then that these images are your own work:
    GMGtalk 15:03, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    GreenMeansGo I moved this to the correct section but I hadn't even looked on Commons yet. Also see above...Praxidicae (talk) 15:05, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I happened to have Draft:Ashish Rudhra on my watchlist, I believe because the user previously uploaded File:Jayvijay Sachan.jpg and File:Sahher Bambba.jpg (now deleted), also uploaded as dubious own work. GMGtalk 15:09, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not a paid user i'm just creating article. Let me quote your userpage for you: I am working in a company, Rudhra Technologies. Even if you "work" for them, for free, they are still clients of your employer and that makes you an editor with a conflict of interest and also paid.Praxidicae (talk) 15:07, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Personally, I think this user has been given enough chances and should now be blocked for advertising. I would have done it already if this discussion were not ongoing. Deb (talk) 16:29, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Ain't gonna hurt my feelings any. GMGtalk 16:48, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Deb I'm not sure why that means they shouldn't be blocked. That's precisely why I opened this discussion, they clearly don't intend to follow the terms of use (and honestly this probably warrants a lock given this is also paid xwiki editing.) Praxidicae (talk) 17:16, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Also courtesy ping for @Mala chaubey: who appears to have been somewhat involved in this on hi.wiki. GMGtalk 17:24, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay then, I've put a short block on and I hope the user may take the time to understand why. If there is any further advertising or creation of inappropriate articles, there will obviously be a follow-up action - but we'll cross that bridge when we come to it. Deb (talk) 18:12, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Deb Would it be possible to make it a condition of their unblock that they disclose as per WP:PAID even if they don't intend to further edit such articles? They've basically already done the damage. Praxidicae (talk) 18:14, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    How confident are we that we can prove they are paid? Deb (talk) 18:15, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, they're employed per their own admission by Rudhra Technologies and each of the articles I noted above (and with the diffs that show they're paid clients, which can also be seen on Rudhra's website) are of their clients. Whether they're paid directly or not is irrelevant at this point as they're a digital marketing agency and writing an article about their clients on the world's largest encyclopedia seems to be right on target...of course we can't ever prove that anyone is definitively paid but I'm not sure how much more evidence I can present to make it clear. also as I noted in the second paragraph, there is far too much here to be a coincidence given that four of their creations are recreations of known pay-for-edit spam farms. Praxidicae (talk) 18:27, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I also have some damning off-wiki evidence that I can submit to arbcom if needed. I think this should be an indefinite block because I can say with certainty that this isn't a mistaken "oopsie, I didn't know I couldn't edit for pay even after a dozen warnings!" ;) Praxidicae (talk) 18:32, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Deb: per PAID: Users who are compensated for any publicity efforts related to the subject of their Wikipedia contributions are deemed to be paid editors, regardless of whether they were compensated specifically to edit Wikipedia. So the argument that they somehow publicize these subjects on-the-clock but edit Wikipedia off-the-clock doesn't hold water. GMGtalk 18:39, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    GMG, not to mention that this almost certainly qualifies as a g5 too, as it's clear they're continuing the work of 4 sets of other paid editors. Sent off wiki evidence to arbcom too. Praxidicae (talk) 18:42, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, okay, I accept all that, but the fact that there's a discussion here means I need to make sure no one disagrees before I move to a permanent block. You know how admins get it in the neck if they step out of line :-) If he returns, he'll need to be squeaky clean. Deb (talk) 18:43, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    On an unrelated note @Praxidicae: Curious that when you move a page to draft space here it doesn't affect the Wikidata item...presumably because its a cross-namespace move? That doesn't seem quite right. GMGtalk 18:53, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    London Square (property developer)

    This editor has repeatedly added promotional uncited content to this article. They have responded to a COI notice (and follow-up) on their talkpage with "thank you for this but this is not advertising. Is just reporting right pieces of information about this company. I'll cut all the links to the website, if this is working better." They seem to be ducking the COI issue. Edwardx (talk) 14:49, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    List of classical music competitions

    WP:LINKSPAM to the website of chinese NTD Television is added to List of classical music competitions by user NTD-Competition. The user is disguising the spam by giving it english titles and language codes. Username implies a COI connection to the target of the links. --OrestesLebt (talk) 16:50, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Upwork sockfarm

    articles and drafts
    users not listed in sockfarm

    Just a run-of-the-mill Upwork sockfarm. Noting here for the record. Some stuff has been draftified and deleted by the SPI team. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:55, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @Bri: Hashamtere: "OhmniLabs". Zeeshantere: "Australia’s Top 100 Graduate Employers"/gradaustralia.com.au. Dlinksma: "T & T Supermarket". Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 22:32, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @L235: two more please? Tegrat1042/sandbox and Mather90/sandbox ☆ Bri (talk) 23:27, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure! Tegrat1042/sandbox is "Keyo" (keyo.com), and Mather90/sandbox is "Kristel Bechara". Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 23:45, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    North East Delhi riots

    Article on the recently reported riots in the national capital of India, Delhi seems to be getting tons of arguments where the involvement of the editors mainly from India and Pakistan having edit-wars which is not only harming the 5 pillars of Wikipedia but also the article seems to be an attempt of whitewash by covering only about a specific political party and the people from a specific religion. Also, the well-cited facts are being ignored on the bases of onesided discussed on the talk page of the article. Where the edits from certain users (included above) seem to be more of conflict of interest which can be seen in their aggressive arguments and cleaning up of the discussions on the talk page of the article and their talk pages. Personally, some of these users left baseless ban notices and warning on my talk pages. Involvement of editors for a specific country in promoting radicalism may have conflict of interest which should be monitored by a neutral editor — Sanskari Hangout 09:19, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Where is the evidence for the WP:COI
    For the record, there is no COI in my case. I suggest User:Sanskari be topic banned from wP:ARBIPA for blatant WP:BATTLE and wP:ABF against editors who he disagrees with. We cannot possibly have such editors editing controversial and heated topics. --⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 09:24, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    It seems User:DBigXray have a strong conflict on interest on the topic which can be seen:

    • In his aggressive arguments and the interest in the topic
    • Media coverage about his edits here and here
    • Interest and involvement mainly in the Indian sub-continental topics
    • His Origin of the country
    • Hiding talk pages (his and of the article) by archiving it while keeping the arguments that favor onesided edits.
    • Despite the fact New York Times, Times of India and various other reliable third-party media agencies named various other people mainly from a specific involvement, but he personally refused to include their names under lead-role while promoting about a specific religion.

    Not only his arguments but also the discussion and questions raised from various other editors on the talk page of the article should be examined carefully. — Sanskari Hangout 09:43, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:BOOMERANG Please. ⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 09:45, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Update: @Kautilya3: has raised the concern over deleting the discussion (by archiving and hiding from the main page) on the talk page of the article and over his pointless arguments while repeating the same personal opinions. — Sanskari Hangout 09:52, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard&oldid=943178796"