WP:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Abof through Zizoo

• {{pagelinks|Gondwana Records}}
• {{pagelinks|Mammal Hands}}
• {{pagelinks|Hania Rani}}
• {{pagelinks|Matthew Halsall}}
• {{userlinks|GeorgiaGondwanaRecords}}
• {{userlinks|Will Gondwana}}
• {{userlinks|Dangondwana}}
• {{userlinks|Mlee164}} - suspicion based on the combination of edit history and user name similarity to [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Leem1020 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)

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

::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)

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

::::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. {{u|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)

:::::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 [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Matthew_Halsall.jpg], an SPA re-uploaded and a different SPA added it to Matthew Halsall page. Graywalls (talk) 20:07, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

:{{re|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)

{{Resolved|Involved users are now indeffed per WP:SPI/MJ2257, issue seems to be largely resolved. MediaKyle (talk) 15:13, 1 July 2025 (UTC)}}

• {{Pagelinks|Nicholas Halley}}
• {{Pagelinks|Draft:Capella Regalis Choirs}}
• {{Userlinks|MJ2257}}

In {{diff|oldid=1251115922|label=this talk page message}} in October 2024, the user MJ2257 said they are the personal assistant of Nicholas Halley. Yesterday they created Capella Regalis Choirs directly in the mainspace, which I draftified today, and left a COI notice on their talk page. The user denies having a conflict of interest, and claims they no longer work for Nicholas Halley. The user continues to edit the Nicholas Halley article without a disclosure, including removing the BLP primary sources tag I added today, which I think was a justified tag. This appears to be a longstanding issue going on since November of 2024 at least, and more attention from other editors might be necessary here. MediaKyle (talk) 18:54, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

:Noting here that MJ2257 has tried to blank this report, twice: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=1296236262][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=1296236467] - MrOllie (talk) 19:08, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

::And also blanked the sockpuppetry notice I left at User talk:SilaGerAllePac25. This is starting to cross a line into disruptive editing now. MediaKyle (talk) 19:09, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Looks like this is going to be headed to SPI soon as well, see also {{Userlinks|CatLyn94}} for anyone looking into this. -- MediaKyle (talk) 19:36, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

• {{pagelinks|Borehole mining}}
• {{userlinks|BHMI}}

I suspect that the username BHMI stands for "Borehole Mining International". I previously removed an [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Borehole_mining&diff=prev&oldid=1284821674 unnecessary credit] to that company and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Borehole_mining&diff=prev&oldid=1284821508 a link] to that company's website in the external links. Today {{u|BHMI}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Borehole_mining&diff=prev&oldid=1296243367 added] another image with the same credit.

{{u|BHMI}} has [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Y&diff=prev&oldid=1289500606 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)

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

::@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)

:::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)

• {{pagelinks|Morris College}}
• {{userlinks|HTemoney}}

HTemoney is a single-purpose account who only edits Morris College. I will not state exactly why I believe they are an employee of the college but I am confident that others who spend a few minutes conducting their own brief investigation will come to the same conclusion. More importantly, they have not responded to any questions on their User Talk page despite several warnings and questions. If they do not respond here, I am afraid that a block is warranted (although a partial block preventing them from editing just that one article would likely be sufficient) to prevent what is almost certainly undisclosed paid editing. ElKevbo (talk) 21:42, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

:They are [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Morris_College&curid=5759956&diff=1297177494&oldid=1296256943 continuing to edit] without making any effort to communicate or collaborate with other editors. {{ping|Skdb}} Can you please look into this or weigh in? I think administrator tools are needed. ElKevbo (talk) 21:55, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

• {{pagelinks|Sabrina Lund}}
• {{userlinks|Michael Psaila}}
• {{userlinks|Nanocreatorpage}}

User:Michael Psaila (recently renamed User:Nanocreatorpage) created the biography Sabrina Lund, who he claims to have no professional connection to. Although he acknowledges that he took the picture which is now in use on the biography. Michael Psaila has since abruptly blanked the conflict of interest discussion on his talk page and changed username, before I had the chance to respond. I am continuing the discussion here. Fancy Refrigerator ^(talk) 08:38, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

:{{ping|Fancy Refrigerator}}, I think that is moot as {{u|Nanocreatorpage}} is an SPA and you have already nominated their article for deletion, so there is not much more to do at this point. TSventon (talk) 09:01, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

:@Nanocreatorpage. The picture you uploaded to Commons appears on jeyranmain.com [https://jeyranmain.com/2025/04/18/consequence-of-power-by-sabrina-lund-book-review-2027/], one of the sources you added to Sabrina Lund. Are you affiliated with this website? Fancy Refrigerator ^(talk) 09:31, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

:Article deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sabrina Lund. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:50, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

• {{pagelinks|Yadavs of Nepal}}
• {{userlinks|Devid yadav}}

This user is part of this caste. Many users, and the general consensus, have described this particular caste as "middle", which is consistently and persistently reverted by Mr. Yadav, who insists that his caste is "prominent" or "high".
Thanks, Plastixfy (talk) 03:17, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

• {{pagelinks|Draft:Worldwide Call Centers, Inc.}}
• {{userlinks|Nsepeps}}

@Nsepeps created an account yesterday and their first edit was to create a draft for that company and all of their edits are to that draft article. I left a comment on their talk page but they haven't responded, despite making edits to the article after my comment was posted and resubmitting the article to AfC. The account might be an SPA here to promote that company. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 02:29, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

:Draft was declined. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:47, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

• {{userlinks|Nihil novi}}
• {{userlinks|Logologist}}
• 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, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Translation&diff=prev&oldid=174317118 L becomes active and involved] in a dispute which [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Translation&diff=prev&oldid=175151609 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 [https://xtools.wmcloud.org/pageinfo/en.wikipedia.org/Julian%20Ochorowicz (1)], [https://xtools.wmcloud.org/articleinfo/en.wikipedia.org/W%C5%82adys%C5%82aw_Tatarkiewicz (2)], [https://xtools.wmcloud.org/pageinfo/en.wikipedia.org/Robert%20Stiller (3)], [https://xtools.wmcloud.org/pageinfo/en.wikipedia.org/Ignacy%20Krasicki (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”), [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nihil_novi&diff=prev&oldid=1276881300 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. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nihil_novi&diff=prev&oldid=1297368836 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...).
• [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List%20of%20multiple%20discoveries&diff=next&oldid=997310524 NN adding a para] about K’s discovering/inventing “recombinant conceptualization” to List of multiple discoveries;
• [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Monterey_Peninsula_College&diff=prev&oldid=657084515 NN adding K to the “notable people” subsection of a college];
• [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Monterey,_California&diff=prev&oldid=780986424 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. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Translation&diff=prev&oldid=994101676 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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Translation&diff=prev&oldid=291641722 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)

While ToeSchmoker (hereafter "TS") placed a notice on my talk page alleging "conflicts of interest", he did not specify any allegations to which I might have responded.

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 of 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)

: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 [https://www.amazon.com/Constitutions-Poland-United-States-Genealogy-ebook/dp/B01H304EUG/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&s=books&sr=1-1&text=Joseph+Kasparek-Obst 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)

• {{pagelinks|Melis Aker}}
• {{userlinks|Melis Aker}}

Not sure if this is exactly the right the forum for this, but the article Melis Aker was recently moved over objections from two reviewers (myself and {{u|HilssaMansen19}}) to mainspace from Draft:Melis Aker over concerns of WP:NOTPROMO, WP:COI, and WP:Original synthesis. You can see those articulated in [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Melis_Aker&oldid=1297706532 this version] of the draft. The article was written by the subject, and it was properly disclosed. However, Aker did remove negative quotes about her work during the writing of the draft and purposefully avoided including any materials that presented her work in less than a positive light. For example, The New York Times piece by Elisabeth Vincentelli is mixed with a lean towards a negative review. An unedited quote reflecting this was added by me to the article, but was removed by Melis Aker in [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Melis_Aker&diff=1285472116&oldid=1285455822 this edit]. The article now uses a highly edited quote by Vincentelli which splices together sentence fragments in a way that I think misrepresents the review. It's clearly been curated as a puffery/promo piece. The article was moved out of draft over these objections by {{u|Theroadislong}}. I moved it back to draft space as the concerns raised by two prior reviewers were not addressed. It was then moved back to main space by {{u|MCE89}} without any discussion. This would seem to violate policy at WP:DRAFTOBJECT. So I am now taking this here. I don't think we should be moving curated autobiographical pages into mainspace that are not compliant with our policies at WP:NOTPROMO/WP:COI.4meter4 (talk) 16:10, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

::I'm not sure this is the right place to bring up these concerns? surely you just need to take it to WP:AFD? Theroadislong (talk) 16:17, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

:::@{{u|Theroadislong}} The issue here is not notability, but WP:COI editing. This is an autobiographical page where the author has intentionally removed material that presents her in a less than positive light. I spoke with her about this already at User talk:Melis Aker. We had previously talked about the need to use balanced reviews at [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Theatre/Archive_7#Request_for_Review:_Melis_Aker_Draft WikiProject Theatre]. This was an issue she was made aware of. Moving the page to mainspace prematurely undermined those conversations about fixing WP:NOTPROMO issues. The move out of draft space should never have happened under these circumstances. 4meter4 (talk) 16:27, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

:Moving it back to mainspace is not remotely a violation of WP:DRAFTOBJECT. DRAFTOBJECT says that an article can't be moved unilaterally to draftspace more than once. An article can be moved to mainspace by an AfC reviewer without needing to consult with everyone who previously declined it. I accepted the draft, as did Theroadislong, because I believed that it would likely survive an AfD discussion. If you don't believe the article should be in mainspace, nominate it at AfD and make a WP:TNT argument about the COI/PROMO issues.

:It is also not true that the article now currently uses a highly edited quote by Vincentelli. You are correct that that quote misrepresented the review, which is why I [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Melis_Aker&diff=prev&oldid=1297735085 fixed it] when I accepted the draft. I agree that there are problems with the page, and I agree with the tags that you added to it before I accepted it, but both I and Theroadislong were entirely within our rights to accept the submission. MCE89 (talk) 16:42, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

::@{{u|MCE89}} Actually no. There weren't enough meaningful changes made to remedy the problems of the article (even normal holdups like bare urls weren't fixed) and it was a controversial move to mainspace that overturned multiple prior reviewers. I objected and per WP:DRAFTOBJECT it shouldn't have been moved to mainspace a second time without a WP:CONSENSUS conversation which never happened. Regardless, the WP:NOTPROMO concerns are strong enough here I think the COI noticeboard should handle this.4meter4 (talk) 16:45, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Is your argument really that every time an AfC reviewer wants to accept an article, they should get the consensus of any previous reviewer who declined it? That would be, well, an enormous change to the way that AfC operates. WP:DRAFTOBJECT says that an article can't be moved to draftspace over an objection. If you object to a move to mainspace, the correct action to take is to nominate the page at AfD. I'm really not sure what you are expecting the COI noticeboard to achieve here or what outcome you are seeking. And of course I didn't decline on the basis of bare urls after you had already applied the appropriate bare url tag — see point 3 under Invalid reasons for declining a submission. MCE89 (talk) 17:04, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

::::Ignoring the cogent issues raised in prior reviews is disrespectful of the other people who volunteered their time at draft review. I believe the original synthesis issues raised by HilssaMansen19 were never addressed and are still extant in the article; as are the overuse of primary source materials. Given this is a WP:BLP it fails BLP policy for engaging with SYNTH and therefore does not pass WP:AFCSTANDARDS (fails step 3). Thank you for fixing the NYT quote, but you did that after I raised the concerns with the move to mainspace by Theroadislong and my move back to draft. The main thing I want is this to go back to draft space and have all of the relevant problems identified in draft review be fixed before this moves to mainspace. I'd also like the COI noticeboard to give this a look over and make sure their aren't any further COI problems in the current version of the article. 4meter4 (talk) 17:16, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::If what you want is for this to be returned to draftspace, the only venue where a consensus to re-draftify the page can be established is at AfD. Again, please feel free to nominate it there. The article obviously still has plenty of problems and COI issues so I fully endorse your tags, but an article doesn't have to be perfect to be accepted at AfC. If you think those issues are so serious that the article should not exist in mainspace you can take it to AfD and seek a consensus to re-draftify, but I don't think there's really much of a point continuing to re-litigate my and Theroadislong's AfC acceptances here. MCE89 (talk) 17:44, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::I completely disagree. AFD is not the only forum which has the power to draftify an article. Any administrative noticeboard can do that. No sense in WP:FORUMSHOPPING when we can make a decision here. There are very good reasons to work through this article further in draft space because it is autobiographical, and that does fall under the COI noticeboard's purview. Also, as noted this was an improper move to article space because of the BLP violations that fail step 3 of AFC review.4meter4 (talk) 17:50, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

:After reading the conversation here and checking previous versions along with the current one, @4meter4 is right. Too many concerns and issues do indicate that it may not be ready for the main space yet, and requires either re-draft, full re or TNT. It is respectfully towards all the other opinions by reviewers here. The content may have been represented one way by the editor and there were problematic edits. I pointed out some non-encyclopedic parts. They edited that specific part out which is well appreciated but more work is still needed on the OR like tone. HilssaMansen19Irien1291S • spreading wiki love ~ Message here; no calls 17:27, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

::Specifically in the Career section. HilssaMansen19Irien1291S • spreading wiki love ~ Message here; no calls 17:31, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

{{ping|Theroadislong|MCE89|4meter4|HilssaMansen19}} I think it will be difficult to get consensus to draftify here as there seem to be two involved editors for and two against. I also don't think that COIN advice is needed to see that the article still has problems. I suggest

• Explain what needs to be fixed in a new section at Talk:Melis Aker
• Possibly ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red to see if anybody is interested in fixing the problems
• Take to WP:AFD to request draftification if necessary
• Possibly start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation to get clarity on how WP:DRAFTOBJECT should work TSventon (talk) 20:39, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

I'm not seeing where User:Melis Aker has edited this article since it was published from draft. We require CoI editors to use the AfC process, as was done here. Where is the CoI issue? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:36, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

::@{{u|Pigsonthewing}} The issue here is that it should never have been approved at AFC because of on-going COI/BLP issues in the draft which fail step 3 of WP:AFCSTANDARDS. AFC only works when reviews are competent. 4meter4 (talk) 20:38, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

:::You're not answering my question. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:51, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

::::I don't think the question is particularly apt or cogent. We require COI articles to go through AFC review for a reason. If AFC review isn't properly followed, it doesn't really matter what came after because it didn't do its job. AFC only works as a gatekeeper to mainspace if reviewers follow all of the steps and policies in the review guideline. A COI written autobiography should pass BLP policy before it gets approved for main space per step 3 of WP:AFCSTANDARDS, and as multiple editors have pointed out, this article does clearly have BLP issues.4meter4 (talk) 21:00, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::The question is highly pertinent. If you can't tell us where there is a COI issue (much less provide evidence of one) with edits by the editor you have named in your opening lines, the matter has no business being on this page. You have been advised already on one better course of action; WP:DR describes others. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:04, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::I already provided evidence in my opening statement of the removal of negative quotes by the writer. Additionally, the use of puffery, source imbalance, and the overuse of primary sources are readily obvious to anyone bothering to look at the materials. This is a pretty clear cut case self promotion, which has already been acknowledged by others above. I'm not going to respond further to your comments because in general I've not been impressed with the way you choose to behave in community spaces such as ANI where I find your conversation style overly combative. I have better things to do with my day then get sucked into a debate with you. 4meter4 (talk) 21:10, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::You have provided no evidence whatsoever that Melis Aker has acted in breach of our COI (nor PAID) policy.

:::::::You have complained about the actions of other editors, without making any suggestion, much less providing evidence, that they have any CoI.

::::::: Your opening words were {{Tq|1="Not sure if this is exactly the right the forum for this"}}. I'm not the only editor telling you that it is not.

:::::::Your ad hominem is unacceptable but you can reply or not; your silence shall speak loudly of your inability to refute what I am saying. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:18, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::You just made my point. I'm not interested in being your punching bag today Andy. Go throw your personal attacks around at someone else on some other thread.4meter4 (talk) 21:25, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::{{ping|4meter4}} could you respond to my suggestions at 20:39, 28 June 2025? TSventon (talk) 14:41, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::@{{u|TSventon}} I think those are good suggestions for next steps if there is no consensus at this particular thread. It's possible some action could be made here, and if so those points would not be necessary. While this thread is open it would be impossible to act on those suggestions because of the guideline at Wikipedia:Consensus. Best.4meter4 (talk) 18:44, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

{{Section resolved|1=No breach of COI policy has been evidenced. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:36, 1 July 2025 (UTC)}}

• {{pagelinks|Kevin Mensah (American footballer)}}
• {{userlinks|Kwamebofo}}

The article was created by Kwamebofo and all of their contributions are to that page, except three edits to three different articles related to the subject, e.g. to add a Wikilink to the subject's name [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2020_UConn_Huskies_football_team&diff=prev&oldid=1297604056]. I left a comment on their talk page (granted, wording could have been better maybe) but they haven't responded, despite editing since.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kevin_Mensah_(American_footballer)&diff=prev&oldid=1297663540] Then a newly-created account, BrandonJonessr made their 3 and only edits to the same article. An IP also edited the article once (their only edit). The IP [https://whatismyipaddress.com/ip/2600:6C64:4E7F:6528:A02D:7A91:8FD5:2B4A Geolocates] to the same city as the subject of the article. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 09:00, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

:Please explain how this is a "probable COI". With 16 of 20 edits to the new article, even calling the new user a Single-purpose account seems premature to me. -- Pemilligan (talk) 15:43, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

::I thought I did in the op. It seems like an unlikely coincidence that three separate editors thought to edit an article on this one person at exactly the same time. If the subject of the article was in the news recently then that could explain it, but I didn't see any evidence of that. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 15:57, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Another way to describe the events:

::::One person created a new article and linked to it in three other articles; 10 hours later, an IP made one edit; 2 hours after that, another user made two edits, and followed with one more edit 22 hours later.

:::When I see new articles created on subjects of interest to me, I often read them and make improvements if I see the need. Perhaps there is a conflict of interest; perhaps not. I don't think you've shown it to be probable on the basis of people editing a new article. Do you see any issues in the article contents that might suggest a conflict of interest? -- Pemilligan (talk) 00:05, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

::::{{tq| 10 hours later, an IP made one edit}}

::::10 minutes after Kwamebofo made an edit. The IP is also from the same city as the subject of the article, wacky coincidence I guess.

::::{{tq|Do you see any issues in the article contents that might suggest a conflict of interest?}}

::::* The editor wrote details about the subject that aren't in sources, such as {{tq|Raised in a single parent household with two younger siblings}}

::::* They linked to a webshop as a citation for two claims, like this one: {{tq|Mensah is active as an A&R in the music industry.}}[https://kliqbrand.com/q-a-kevin-mensah-uconn/]

::::Maybe the editor is a psychic and they just guessed the details about the subject's life. Linking to a web shop instead of an interview is satire about athletes being walking advertisements for merchandise, very deep. Perhaps Wikipedia rules changed in the last few hours to allow astral projection as a reputable source and BLP articles to become vehicles for biting social commentary. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 01:20, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

:Copyright concerns with the image in the article, too. It was uploaded by Kwamebofo and the source is: {{tq|Picture was used by Stephen Dunn including Kevin Mensah}}, the author is credited as Stephen Dunn, and the image is supposedly in the public domain. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 08:05, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

::The image was deleted as a copyright violation on Commons at 09:56, 30 June 2025. New editors often make mistakes with copyright, whether they have a COI or not. TSventon (talk) 10:10, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

• {{pagelinks| Paula Duncan}}
• {{userlinks| Michaeltrilogycare}}

User created a section at Paula Duncan, talking about advocacy while also promoting Trilogy Care and using cited sources to promote the company.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paula_Duncan&diff=prev&oldid=1297071865] As their name is Michaeltrilogycare, this seems blatantly promotional. A user reverted them for using WP:LINKSPAM and their response has been to argue[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Michaeltrilogycare&diff=prev&oldid=1296924685] and insult the user.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Michaeltrilogycare&diff=prev&oldid=1297070683][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:GoingBatty&diff=prev&oldid=1297079262] NJZombie (talk) 15:16, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

:{{Tl|uw-coi}} was left on Michaeltrilogycare's talk page at 19:16 (UTC) on 24 June 2025. They have not edited since 01:45 (UTC) on 24 June, so why have you brought this here now? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:48, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

::Because another admin suggested I do so. NJZombie (talk) 15:07, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

:::Where? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:35, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I am the subject of the article Draft:El Mostafa Ouchen and understand that writing about oneself may be viewed as a conflict of interest (COI). I have attempted to follow Wikipedia's content and sourcing guidelines and used reliable, independent sources including published articles from *Anfas Press* and *Al Mostakbal 24*.

The draft was recently declined through Articles for Creation. I would like to respectfully request that a neutral, experienced editor review the current draft and consider submitting it on my behalf if appropriate.

I am disclosing this COI and will refrain from further edits to the draft. I welcome any improvements or suggestions. Thank you very much for your assistance. Mouchen2030 (talk) 18:00, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

:The decline is correct. Sources are either invalid or inaccessible. A quick search on Google shows nothing to back the notability, as defined by Wikipedia, of the subject. Nothing more will be or can be done. See WP:AUTOBIO as for why we don't encourage people to write their autobiography. – robertsky (talk) 19:27, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

::FYI, the decline on this draft was likely AI-hallucinated, and had been generated by the LLM used and not a person. Sarsenet•he/they•(talk) 08:02, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

:::OP was blocked for WP:NOTHERE. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 14:42, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

File:Symbol watching blue lashes high contrast.svg You are invited to join the discussion at :meta:Requests for comment/Should paid editing as a CU be allowed. Some1 (talk) 00:42, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

Hi all,

I'm posting here after making a COI disclosure and cast addition request on the Talk page for Detective Chinatown 1900 (2024), which hasn’t received any replies. I’m hoping a neutral editor might be able to take a look and, if appropriate, make the requested cast update.

Here’s my original request:

🔗 Talk:Detective Chinatown 1900#Request to add actor to cast list

To summarise:

• I played the credited, speaking role of Thomas Lawrence
• My name (AJ Donnelly) appears in the on-screen credits, IMDb, and Baidu Baike
• Screenshot: https://imgur.com/a/7a6Dr7E
• IMDb: https://m.imdb.com/title/tt34463310/
• Baike: https://baike.baidu.com/item/%E5%94%90%E6%8E%A21900/63191688
• Article from the UK newspaper Bedford Today: https://www.bedfordtoday.co.uk/news/people/bedford-actor-lands-role-in-major-movie-with-john-cusack-and-chow-yun-fat-4985876

I’ve avoided editing the article directly due to COI and would greatly appreciate it if a neutral editor could review and, if appropriate, add the credit.

Thanks so much!

— User:Egghead's Voicebox Egghead's Voicebox (talk) 03:32, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

:{{ping|Egghead's Voicebox}} Putting the template {{tlx|Edit COI}} at the top of your request at Talk:Detective Chinatown 1900 will automatically include your request in the list "Category:Wikipedia conflict of interest edit requests" [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_conflict_of_interest_edit_requests]. As a courtesy, I have placed it there for you. That will eventually attract the attention of a reviewer and they will respond on the article talk page. Best to keep the discussion there instead of splitting it between here and there. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 14:49, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

• {{pagelinks|Spring Education Group}}
• {{userlinks|NR12141988}}
• {{userlinks|Bouncyball2019}}
• {{userlinks|Breezy6508}}

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. {{diff|Spring Education Group|cur|1293721393|Here's the current full diff from when the editing started a few weeks ago}}; {{diff2|1298137035|this voucher program termination for Chinese ties}} and {{diff2|1298136873|credit rating change during COVID}} are examples of removals that might be worth preserving. tedder (talk) 15:03, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

• {{pagelinks|William Graif}}
• {{pagelinks|Chess prodigy}}
• {{pagelinks|New York State Chess Association}}
• {{pagelinks|Edgemont Junior – Senior High School}}
• {{userlinks|Chessy12}}

This account appears to have been set up exclusively for the purpose of promoting a rather obscure chess player. Wikidata edits also. Player is ranked [https://ratings.fide.com/profile/2609835 61st in Canada and 7439th in the world] according to the international chess governing body FIDE; this strongly suggests the player does not meet WP:GNG, or the informal WP:NCHESS guideline used by participants in WP:CHESS. References in the main article are trivial and passing, e.g. friendship with a MLB player, and usually sourced to small obscure local papers. User [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Chessy12&diff=next&oldid=1298358602 refused to engage] on talk page when [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Chessy12&diff=prev&oldid=1298358602 conflict of interest concerns were raised], and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Chessy12&diff=prev&oldid=1298358602 edit] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=William_Graif&diff=1298383549&oldid=1298379372 warred] to remove the COI and notability templates from the article, despite having a self-declared COI. Editor does not appear to be here to build an encyclopedia, but to use wikipedia as a vehicle for promotional purposes. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 05:06, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

:Absolutely false.

:The page passed the actual review process, including GNG, for very good reason. It features the current and 146th New York State Chess Champion (past champions include Pal Benko, Jose Capablanca, Hikaru Nakamura, etc), multiple-time Natl Champion for age group, and FIDE Master with an IM norm and peak rating 2335 FIDE, as well as a very notable figure within the chess community. This is demonstrated by the fact that the subject has been fully *featured* in several notable outlets, available in the 41 references at the bottom of the page, including but not limited to:

:- MLB.com

:- Bloomberg

:- The Daily News

:- The Scarsdale Inquirer

:- US Chess Federation

:- Westchester County Government

:- The Chicago Maroon

:- National Scholastic Chess Foundation

:- Uptown Radio

:- ChessMood

:- Empire Chess

:The user I am replying to did not seek to improve the article in good faith, which would have of course been welcomed. Rather, they immediately proposed deletion on a page that had just passed through the actual review process. Their only stated concern (a cited reference to Connect 4) was deleted on my part, and I removed the PROD tag while noting the above. Again, however, this user returned with strange tags on the page, rather than any good-faith attempt to improve the page. I would encourage the user to direct their energy away from futile and strange crusades against well-written and notable pages, and towards improving Wikipedia. Thank you and all the best. Chessy12 (talk) 05:19, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

• {{pagelinks|Kim Novak}}
• {{userlinks|Ieonine}}

Ieonine has repeatedly restored excessive, contextless post-retirement photos (pictures with no indication of their significance, if any), despite getting no support at Talk:Kim Novak#Excessive photos. They have even essentially admitted they are working for Novak. See their edit comment at 08:20 today (July 1): "Undid revision 1298220764 by Clarityfiend (talk) I did too provide a counterexample. After your misrepresentation, this is the last I'll engage in your petty, futile arguments. For no good reason, you seem obsessed with excluding any photo Novak's web manager uploaded." (bolding mine) Clarityfiend (talk) 06:42, 2 July 2025 (UTC)