Loading

  • 21 Aug, 2019

  • By, Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Conflict Of Interest Noticeboard
Clear WP:SPA only interested in editing an article about himself. Previous edits already revdeleted for copyright issues. See this edit PHShanghai | they/them (talk) 14:53, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a very clear-cut COI violation. - Amigao (talk) 03:20, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Should I also add the main article to Articles for deletion? The sources of that article all suck.. there's only one reliable source (Attitude Magazine). I haven't heard of the other sources PHShanghai | they/them (talk) 06:36, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pinialtaus

Pinialtaus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) For going straight to making ten edits after being old enough to meet the time requirement and then immediately to posting Yohei Kiguchi (entrepreneur) and Enechange (company). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oona Wikiwalker (talk • contribs) 22:58, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Special:Contributions/EAllen04

First time submitting something like this, so please bear with me.

It appears to me that user EAllen04 is the same Eleanor Allen named in the Water For People article. Eleanor recently edited the Flourishing article, contributing a word salad of advertising copy that further dilutes the quality of an article already thoroughly suffused with marketing-speak and woo.

EAllen04 was notified of their COI responsibilities in March of 2024. I notified them again following their most recent string of edits. Respectfully requesting a more seasoned editor double check my work here.

🆃🆁🆂™ 13:32, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At this time I should also point out that in light of Wikipedia:INDISCRIMINATE, I struggle to discern a convincing case for the continued presence of the article Water For People anywhere within the scope of the project. The subject organization fails the notability test, and nearly all the cited sources are from either the organization itself or one of their members named in the article. If it were my choice, I'd say nuke this stinker -- but that's probably why I don't have any actual power around here ;) 🆃🆁🆂™ 13:44, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'm inclined to agree with you. I've removed some unsourced text from Water For People and reverted the recent edits to Flourishing. As you say, AfD may be the solution for Water for People.
Looking at the edit history for Water For People, there have been various redlinked WP:SPAs editing the article from 2010 onwards, which is probably why it is such a mess.
However, on the other hand there is the following text, which is obviously some kind of WP:SYNTH/WP:OR and presumably doesn't originate from the organisation itself: Water For People reported in its 2015 IRS tax form that it spent a total of $18,844,346, in which $5,819,735 in administration, and $1,944,288 in fundraising. There's a discrepancy here. On Water For People's website, they have all their audited financial statements from 2005 to 2015. They also have all their IRS Form 990s from 2012 to 2016. They also have their IRS Form 1023 accessible from 1991, where they applied for recognition of tax exemption. They also have their 501(c)(3) document, containing a letter that confirms their tax exemption status from the Internal Revenue Service. On its website, the charity also has its own printed pamphlet, called "Behind the Numbers" from the years 2013 to 2015. The pamphlet explains what the money in the respective fiscal year was able to accomplish in project works around the world.
Overall, a mess. Axad12 (talk) 15:02, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi all -EAllen here - I am not trying to be a problem. I am trying to contribute meaningfully. I am the former CEO of Water For People. The page is/was very outdated and I was trying to update it and make it more factual. Wanting to help and appreciate your guidance to do so in an appropriate way.
For Flourishing, the page doesn't mention workplace flourishing. I think it is a missing element on the flourishing page. I did get some copy from SHAPE, a company I respect in this space. Happy to tone it down to not make it sound like marketing text and more factual. Appreciate the guidance. EAllen04 (talk) 16:57, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When you say I did get some copy from SHAPE, a company I respect in this space. Happy to tone it down to not make it sound like marketing text are you basically admitting to having attempted a large scale copyright violation?
Also, I see very clear offwiki evidence suggesting a degree of association between yourself and SHAPE. Given that you appear to have cut and pasted material from SHAPE into Wikipedia, material that you accept sounded like marketing text, maybe it would be best if you were to disclose your conflict of interest there? Axad12 (talk) 17:21, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your edits here [1], here [2] and here [3] were clearly blatant adverts for SHAPE.
To suggest that you are Happy to tone it down isn’t really going to get us anywhere. There is no place for this kind of promotionalism on Wikipedia, no matter how much it is toned down. These edits were not, as you claim, adding detail to an element of Flourishing that was previously not covered. They were very blatant adverts for a specific company.
I note that you also made a large promotional edit [4] back in March 2024 to the article for B Lab, another organisation where off wiki evidence suggests some degree of association. The edit including material such as Notable B-Lab certified corporations: There are thousands of certified B Corps all around the world. You can search the database to find a B Corp here. There are many famous brands including: [...]
In fact, looking at your edit history, is it fair to say that it relates primarily to adding promotional material to articles where you have a conflict of interest (including apparent self-promotion, here [5])? Axad12 (talk) 17:52, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I note also a previous note [6] left on your talk page back in March this year, observing that editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Under the circumstances some explanation is surely required on why you recently felt it wise to add material such as SHAPE Global Ltd is a leading advocate for the research and application of organizational flourishing. Contributing to multiple groups such as Harvard University’s Flourishing at Work and AI for Human Flourishing, as well as IWBI WELL standard, SHAPE is linking the importance of flourishing to regulatory as well as academic communities globally. That is obvious marketing copy re: SHAPE and has nothing to do with the topic of the article. I could give further examples, but hopefully that suffices for now... Axad12 (talk) 18:06, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Leyla Kuliyeva

User publisher wiki has made two sets of changes to this article. The first, which I reverted, was promotional in tone and either unsourced or referenced to primary sources. The second, which I also reverted, was unsourced. Another editor posted on the user's Talk page about CoI, and I followed up with a direct question, to which User publisher wiki responded I have the information and giving concerns about the grammar, quality and brevity of the article. They have now posted on the article's Talk page saying, in part, I have been assigned to create a page for this individual with all the relevant information. This article either needs to be properly edited or deleted and replaced with a new one, as it does not adhere to Wikipedia's standards. If this is not addressed promptly, we will need to notify Wikipedia's legal department to take further action. Tacyarg (talk) 10:33, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Their last comment has now earned them a {{uw-legal}} warning. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 15:32, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There have been quite a lot of problems with this article since it was created. All of the problematic activity clearly derives from a single previously blocked user, evidence as follows...
The article was originally created in Feb '22 by virtual SPA user:TheWeldere who took the article to this rather odd (but very long) version [7] before their work began to be reverted (and the article was taken back to very short stub status).
The user was then blocked for sockpuppetry [8].
Then in Sept '22 user:Dmarketingchamp attempted to create a new article for Leyla Kuliyeva (despite the fact that one already existed). This was turned down at AfC. The user placed their new version of the article on their talk page, here [9]. It is obviously the version that was favoured by the work of a user with an identical agenda to that of the blocked user TheWeldere. Then in Jan '23 Dmarketingchamp cut and pasted their version into the existing article, here [10]. So, this was obvious apparent block evasion and sockpuppetry by the user of the TheWeldere account.
Then in Nov '24 the present account appeared and attempted to create a new article for Kuliyeva (is this sounding familiar?). This was again turned down at AfC (twice this time). The user then implemented their preferred version within the current article, here [11]. So, same story as above.
This version is different to the previous version that the earlier accounts attempted to implement, but is very likely from the same hand.
The behavioural evidence of users trying to create complete replacement articles indicates obvious sockpuppetry and block evasion, as per WP:DUCK. Axad12 (talk) 17:01, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Axad12: Are you going to file a report at SPI? --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 03:31, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would, but I don't know how to. If you feel an SPI is required, would you be prepared to do the honours and simply link to the evidence above? If so it would be much appreciated. Axad12 (talk) 05:11, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note to say that the user seems to be restricted to communicating with extensive AI produced material, as can be seen in recent discussions at their talk page [12] and at the Leyla Kuliyeva talkpage [13]. The user even parroted back one of my responses (here:[14]), presumably due to cut and paste error while putting an earlier question into Google Translate. Axad12 (talk) 12:31, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User publisher wiki now blocked by Izno as an advertising only account (and for wasting people's time on their user page, as per the SPI: [15]). Axad12 (talk) 20:45, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

South College

In a previous edit, this editor used an edit summary that indicates that they work for the college: "We needed to update our number of programs we offer, update the 2023 stats to include CBE programs. Also correct a few grammatical issues." I placed a standard paid editing warning on their User Talk page in May. They have not yet responded to the warning but they continue to edit the college's article. ElKevbo (talk) 22:00, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An once of good faith might be due, just from the standpoint that you warned them last time and they stopped. Then 7 months later they come back, probably don't remember seeing the first warning, and then get two more today after they stopped editing again. Not that this isn't a problem, but I'd probably wait for them to edit again in the next day or two, and then if they do perhaps a hammer needs to come down. Another possibility might be to report per WP:REALNAME. TiggerJay (talk) 05:08, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In fairness, various promotional accounts have been editing that article since at least 2019. For example, this promotional edit [16] with edit summary Update at the request of the college. That user was blocked as an advertising only account.
Then we have this exchange from 2020 [17], where another user admits to working for the college in a marketing capacity and is asked not to edit the article.
Then later that year this user [18] edited the article, later blocked as WP:NOTHERE.
Then user SPA from 2021 [19] whose promotional edits were reverted later that day.
Then this user from 2023 [20], who made 1 edit before being notified of the WP:UPE policy.
And then the current user, whose first edit indicated that they work for the college, and who was notified of the relevant policy back in May.
So, let's not be under any illusion that this college has been directly editing the article for many years, receiving repeated push back in that regard, and is well aware that such activity is contrary to policies and guidelines. Axad12 (talk) 23:44, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That does appear consistent with what I've found, but also let's be real, given the spread of these edits, and their limited scope, even blocking this account isn't going to provide a different outcome. Because, as you noted, there have been multiple accounts, and even blocking those accounts isn't making a difference. A large reason for this, I believe, is that college is full of well intentioned, technically versed students who are going to introduce SPAM, but also, there is a huge rotation employees - most people who edit these sorts of pages on college will not be working there two years later. This is different from a company or individual. That doesn't mean that we ignore it. But my point is, once a notice has been issued, they go away, a block will not make any reasonable difference here except make someone doing AIV patrolling feel better. This doesn't mean that I'm light on abuse, but rather, that I believe that we should be more concerned with actual outcomes versus the appearance of just following the process. TiggerJay (talk) 00:56, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You say once a notice has been issued, they go away, but in this case the user has continued their editing beyond a notice (which is why they ended up here).
You also say that the college is full of well intentioned, technically versed students who are going to introduce SPAM, but as far as can be ascertained (from the accounts' own statements) the accounts originated from employees of the college and from marketing companies employed by the college.
Under those circumstances it's entirely reasonable to assume that those working for the college are aware of the past failures to install promotional content and that they are simply returning to the article once a year or so in the vain hope that no one is looking any more.
You also note that you don't feel a block would be worthwhile - but when an account exists solely for advertising or promotion, and continues beyond a notice, a block is a fairly standard response in accordance with policy (although in this case I don't see that anyone has actually called for a block anyway).
Note also the relatively recent promotional edit here [21], done by an IP address (quite possibly the user named at the top of this thread, or else clearly someone with an identical agenda). That edit (done under a misleading edit summary) was swiftly reverted on the basis that it was promotional.
The named user has been referred to WP:COI and to WP:PAID and any further continuation of the same agenda can only be construed as blatant breaches of policies and guidelines. That's all the more the case given how easy it is to follow the COI edit request process.
The general long term pattern of behaviour seen in this case is actually alarmingly common on the articles for schools and colleges. Blocking is often the only way to get the attention of such editors. Axad12 (talk) 03:57, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not against a block, but I'm simply suggesting that it will simply be a case of WHACKAMOLE and that using warning templates will likely result in the same case of editing every few months from various accounts. The only real way to keep colleges protected is to use page protection, which might be a better option. TiggerJay (talk) 17:12, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't disagree, but when I've tried to get page protection in the past I've often found that (a) this level of disruptive editing wouldn't be judged sufficient to justify protection (they sometimes refer requesting editors back to COIN for this sort of thing), and (b) when protection is applied it's usually only for a time period that wouldn't be much use if the promotional edits only seem to occur once a year or so.
Clearly this isn't an ideal state of affairs, but I can understand why volunteers at WP:RPPI wouldn't want to apply long term protection and thus prevent new good faith non-promotional editors from being able to edit a page. That sort of solution is only going to be a good idea on articles with endemic vandalism issues.
Ideally engaging with COI editors is the way to encourage them to use the COI edit request process, but most promotional editors simply don't engage at their talk page. Axad12 (talk) 17:38, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ivan Lagundžić

One to keep an eye on. This appears to be an autobiography. See the page history of Draft:Ivan Lagundžić. The user doesn't really communicate and most of their edits seem to be to force the article into mainspace (in spite of it being moved out of there due to WP:COI concerns) or talk space - see history at Talk:Ivan Lagundžić. As they have been abusing the function, it may be worth restricting their ability to move articles if their poor behaviour continues. Spiderone 14:32, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And he has done it again. He really will stop at nothing to get himself an article on here, it would seem. Spiderone 22:38, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have partially blocked them from page moves. PhilKnight (talk) 22:43, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Spiderone 22:48, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This Day on Bella Disu

I am trying to cut promotional content from Bella Disu. This Day seems like a "reliable source". However, looking at the content they've published, I'm concerned that this newspaper may have a conflict of interest when it comes to her/her billionaire family.

In fact, many of the sources used in the article seem like the kind of thing a billionaire in a country like Nigeria probably paid someone to write but I am not sure how to handle this. 🄻🄰 08:40, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe best to raise the issue at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard (WP:RSN). Users there may be able to confirm your concerns or perhaps could point you in the direction of a list of WP:RS and non-RS sources within the Nigerian media. Hope this helps. Axad12 (talk) 12:25, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just a brief follow-up to say that there is actually a current thread at WP:RSN in relation to the reliability of Nigerian newspapers (here [22]) which may be of assistance to the user who opened this thread. It seems that the existence of sponsored content in Nigerian newspapers is a widespread problem. Regards, Axad12 (talk) 04:39, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yang Youlin

This user has a self-declared family connection here to the page in question. Definitely is looking like a WP:NOTHERE and attempt at WP:OUTING from this user's contributions to the article's talk page. - Amigao (talk) 01:15, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User has engaged in libelous activity on Reddit, claiming you have disrespected his relative by reverting his edits. His nationalistic behavior and lack of understanding on civil behavior might imply that he either is doing this in favor of the CCP or is simply a really dedicated patriot; while WP:PAID might not apply here WP:NOTHERE is clearly evident. Could warrant a block if he engages in similar behavior. MimirIsSmart (talk) 08:15, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What is the involvement here of user:PrivateRyan44?
PrivateRyan44 set up the article on 13th December and then 24 hours later user:YangZongChang0101 began editing the article, which he states relates to a member of his family.
That is either a matter of the most extreme coincidence, or there is off-wiki collusion taking place.
I also note the discussion between the 2 users here [23] where both users sign off their posts in an identical but rather unusual way.
Note also in the edit history for the article how on 14th December the 2 users seem to tag each other in and out over the course of several hours.
Something looks distinctly odd here. Axad12 (talk) 09:04, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not a nationalist. I am a patriot. Nationalism is a contradiction of Marx’s words in his theory.
I am responding to my concern of Amigao, a well known member on r/sino, and chollima, who has an inherently pro american and pro israel stance, and edits a ridiculous amount of China related articles everyday.
if you can’t see this simple connection to why I am acting the way I am, then I will no longer contribute to this discussion. YangZongChang0101 (talk) 09:09, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
i know him from discord. We are working together on the article with my irl friend Luoniya. YangZongChang0101 (talk) 09:07, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting to see that a user previously interested almost solely in the Boer War suddenly meets a relative of a 1930s member of the CCP on Discord and immediately creates an article about that subject based almost solely on Chinese language sources and then nominates it for Good Article status. The general pattern is what would be expected of someone with a degree of Wiki-editing skills being paid to assist a family member who claims to have an archive of relevant material [24].
That talk page discussion is clearly fake and based on previous collusion off-wiki (given that you have already admitted previous contact).
I still maintain that something irregular appears to have occurred here. Axad12 (talk) 09:30, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also note on the user page for YangZongChang0101: If you want me to research or write about anything to make a page just dm.
Surely the only reason why such a communication would take place off-wiki is if there was something irregular taking place, e.g. WP:UPE?
And why would someone be advertising their availability to create articles on any subject to order, but then using another account to create an article on someone they claim is their own distant relative?
Also, the quote above was added within hours of the YangZong account being opened, clearly indicating that this is not the user's first rodeo.
Evidently there are multiple elements to what has been going on here which look very odd indeed. If there is not some form of paid editing and/or sockpuppetry taking place here I would be most surprised Axad12 (talk) 09:52, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have communicated privately with the editor of note about this on Reddit. These editors are from Mainland China and don't understand how Wikipedia works, so their well-intentioned editing led to all this chaos. I would suggest WP:NOBITING for now, but if similar events happen again action should be taken. MimirIsSmart (talk) 13:15, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In fairness, the statement If you want me to research or write about anything to make a page just dm is not a comment by someone unfamiliar with the workings of Wikipedia.
Similarly the quite disgraceful disparagement of user:Amigao (both here and at the Yang Youlin talkpage) was clearly by someone who had encountered the user before and not someone who had only opened their first account 3 days ago.
Also, user:PrivateRyan44 describes themselves here [25] as a US citizen who has difficulty accessing material in Chinese. It would therefore seem reasonable to assume that PrivateRyan44 is not from Mainland China.
Finally, I do not consider extreme nationalistic POV-pushing to be well-intentioned editing. Axad12 (talk) 13:34, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The editor's mistakes are severe, but I personally believe that he deserves one last chance, on the condition that he adheres to the rules and does not harass editors like he did. If he does not change his ways I suppose a block would do. He showed genuine remorse for the nationalist POV thing but as long as he knows he cannot afford to get into trouble again, he's fine to edit. No comment on the PrivateRyan guy. MimirIsSmart (talk) 13:41, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the user wants to express remorse for anything, the place to do that is here. Not in private on Reddit.
The user clearly is not new. I wonder if Amigao has any thoughts on which account the user previously edited under? Presumably it will be quite easy to spot someone who casually drops their interpretation of Marxist doctrine into conversation (e.g. Nationalism is a contradiction of Marx’s words in his theory). Also, the detailed critique of Amigao's editing pattern and perceived agenda may have been seen before somewhere.
Of course, we await PrivateRyan44's version of all of these events... Axad12 (talk) 13:55, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Very well. You might have to look at the IP he had been using, could be a VPN or proxy. MimirIsSmart (talk) 13:59, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At a minimum, there is a declared COI coupled with a WP:TAGTEAM situation going on and potentially WP:MEAT. - Amigao (talk) 17:54, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Derek Warburton and Khamadi the Amethyst

This appears to be a COI situation; Khamadi the Amethyst has made a great number of edits to Derek Warburton with extremely promotional language. Looking at commons a sizeable majority of their uploads have been removed for lacking any permission and all pertain to Derek Warburton. All of the account's edits are to Derek Warburton or per their talkpage, attempting to create a page for something pertaining to Warburton - apart from a first edit to Eric Greitens today which is where I noticed the user; this aroused my suspicion as an IP had made sweeping, whitewashing changes to Greitens a few days back - but I digress.

The entirety of the Warburton page history appears to be SPA contributors, but this one is the most long-running one. David Gerard added a COI template, which Khamadi the Amethyst removed; this to me is particularly egregious. There was also a question left on the user's talk page around this time which was ignored and the user continued to edit. This seems pretty clearcut COI to me, and the lack of communication/removal of COI templates/continual editing of the page is concerning. — ser! 13:49, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OMG if Warburton is trying to write his own Wikipedia page then this may be the funniest thing to happen in Philosophy Wikipedia in a hot minute. Simonm223 (talk) 13:56, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am clearly thinking of a different Derek Warburton after looking at the page. LOL Simonm223 (talk) 13:56, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am in fact thinking of Nigel Warburton lol and trout me. Simonm223 (talk) 13:57, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've blocked this obvious UPE Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:08, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers Jim, much appreciated. ser! 10:55, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lyons Township High School

Editor states they work for the school. I notified them about their COI which they ignored, perhaps they havent found their talk page. Doug Weller talk 18:19, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:John Fred Ogbonnaya

Possibly paid to edit Wikipedia to create an article for the individual. Editor first replaced the entirety of Diring with the article he created before starting a rejected draft. Clearly not here to build an encyclopedia and there is no way there is no connection between editor and subject. MimirIsSmart (talk) 07:17, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft now speedy deleted under WP:G11 (unambiguous advertising or promotion). Axad12 (talk) 08:54, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Victor Yannacone

As seen here, this user states "I am also a public figure still active as an attorney with an extensive website at https://yannalaw.com" which links to a page promoting Victor Yannacone's legal services.
Given that the article about Victor Yannacone appears to be predominantly edited by this user, a COI tag was added. However, the user recently removed the tag, despite the conflict of interest remaining applicable.

Based on the user's statement and editing patterns, it is reasonable to conclude that they are heavily involved in editing their own article, thus creating a clear conflict of interest. Synorem (talk) 03:36, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User was informed of the COI policy back in August and has continued making extensive edits to the article - including, at present, edit warring over a highly promotional version of the article that they are trying to implement.
The account is evidently only interested in self-promotion.
This activity has already attracted the attentions of admins C.Fred and Significa liberdade, so if the user continues on their current path presumably they will find themselves blocked in the near future. Axad12 (talk) 04:47, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following thread is of relevance here: [26].
It appears to be a good faith attempt at mediation, as an apparent associate of PeoplesBarrister returns to make their first edit in over 10 years arguing on PB's behalf. The post also includes some quite unacceptable allegations of bad faith activity by multiple users which some readers may find rather over the top. I'd suggest that we try to look beyond that in the hope of finding a way forward. Axad12 (talk) 13:44, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This user turned out to be a sockpuppet, and has been blocked. Synorem (talk) 01:48, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

COI tags on "It's Coming (film)" and "The Misguided"

Hello, I'm seeking review of the close connection tags recently added to It's Coming (film) and Draft:The Misguided. These tags were applied based solely on basic journalistic contact with the filmmaker for fact-checking purposes. To be clear: I have never met Shannon Alexander or anyone from the film production company/distribution team, have no personal or professional relationship with them, and my only contact was for fact verification.

Having followed Perth's independent film scene closely for years, I noticed several internationally-recognized films lacked Wikipedia coverage. Rather than simply copy online sources, I took a thorough journalistic approach. My contact was limited to requesting factual verification of release dates and sourcing materials. This contact served to ensure accurate documentation of the films' development and history.

Both articles are built entirely on independent coverage from established media outlets like The Hollywood Reporter, LA Times, and Film Threat. All content follows proper journalistic standards, maintains neutrality, and adheres to Wikipedia guidelines. Every statement in the articles can be verified through these independent sources.

"It's Coming" just underwent thorough review this week, resulting in removal of an unwarranted paid editing tag. The addition of these new tags without discussion or specific concerns lacks justification.

A review of these tags is needed based on: 1. Contact limited to standard fact-checking practices 2. Reliance on independent, reliable sources throughout 3. Clear adherence to neutral point of view 4. Recent thorough review confirming content standards

I'm here to ensure these films are documented accurately and objectively. Thank you for taking the time to review this matter. Happy to address any specific concerns about the content or sourcing.

Stan1900 (talk) 18:53, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest raising this issue at the talk pages of the articles concerned, using the COI edit process detailed here WP:COI. When you do so, please link to the connected discussion at the Help Desk, here [27]. Axad12 (talk) 20:22, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, GPTzero indicates that there is a 100% likelihood that your post above was AI generated. Please stop using AI to generate posts (as was also previously pointed out to you in the discussion here [28]). Axad12 (talk) 21:18, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Axad12, I need to address several concerning points:
1. You suggest I raise these issues on the article talk pages, but if you actually check the links you provided you'll see I've already tried that multiple times. I've gotten zero response there which is why I'm I'm hoping to get a fair and objective assessment from editors who aren't already entrenched in this dispute.
2. The accusation that I'm using AI to write my posts is completely baseless. GPZero is known to be only around 80% accurate at best, so claiming "100% likelihood" is just flat-out wrong. You're mistaking my formal writing style, which comes from my professional background for AI text. Throwing around serious accusations like that with zero proof is not only wrong but also really damaging and hurtful.
3. The sudden addition of a promotional content tag, without any prior discussion, is just the latest in this ongoing pattern of unfounded allegations. First it was paid editing with zero evidence, then a COI tag that's still sitting there after I've repeatedly explained my lack of any affiliation and now suddenly it's 'promotional content?' The article is based entirely on reliable, independent sources. If there are particular statements that seem promotional to you, point them out specifically so we can address them. Just because the film has gotten good reviews from reputable publications doesn't automatically make the article promotional.
I've had to defend myself dozens of times now, repeatedly explaining the same things over and over, providing evidence that gets ignored. How many more baseless accusations do I need to address? The constant tags and allegations without justification have made this whole process exhausting and frankly, pretty demoralizing. But you know what? If anything, it's made me more determined to keep improving these articles properly.
I'm going to post at the NPOV Noticeboard about this latest promotional content tag and I'm also asking for the COI tags to be removed. I'd rather focus on actually improving content than dealing with endless unfounded accusations.
Stan1900 (talk) 22:29, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1) You got zero response because you didn't use the COI editing process. How many users do you think access the talk pages of brand new articles for independent films?
2) You consistently use AI to generate your posts here and any suggestion to the contrary is untrue, as has been noted by several users.
3) Evidence of COI is not required, only room for plausible concern. There is room for huge concern in relation to your editing, as I will demonstrate shortly.
Promotional content can obviously be based on independent reliable sources - especially when the material installed in articles goes some way beyond what the sources actually say (which appears to be your standard MO). Axad12 (talk) 22:47, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Axad12,
1. I've followed every proper channel available - talk pages, help desk, and now appropriate noticeboards. Suggesting I'm at fault for others not responding isn't constructive.
2. Your continued insistence about AI use without evidence is becoming harassment. You have no proof because there is none - these are my own words. Making repeated false accusations doesn't make them true.
3. You state "Evidence of COI is not required" but then claim you'll "demonstrate shortly." Which is it? Either provide specific evidence or stop making vague accusations. If you have concerns about source interpretation, point to specific examples instead of making broad claims.
The recent removal of a properly sourced Reception section, combined with these continued unsubstantiated allegations, suggests a pattern of targeting rather than constructive editing. Stan1900 (talk) 22:52, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1) I didn't say you were at fault, I said it was unreasonable to expect a swift response on a low traffic page. Had you used the COI edit request process you would have got a much faster response as the posts would have gone directly into a volunteer queue rather than relying on footfall.
2) When GPTzero frequently says that there is a 100% likelihood that a post was AI generated, that is sufficient proof. Half of your posts produce that response, the other half produce very low likelihoods of AI input or an indication of human origin. You are therefore producing two distinctively different kinds of posts in a way that is only possible if half of them were not written by you.
3) I'm about to demonstrate the areas of concern, I'm currently drafting the post. Axad12 (talk) 23:03, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Axad12,
1. The COI process is for editors with actual conflicts of interest. I have none, as I've repeatedly explained.
2. Your claims about GPTZero are incorrect. The tool obviously has false positives and is far from 100% accurate, especially with formal writing. Again, making accusations of AI use with no evidence is not constructive.
3. You keep saying you'll "demonstrate" concerns but continue making vague accusations. Please provide specific policy-based concerns about actual content rather than continuing these unsupported allegations. Stan1900 (talk) 23:13, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As you wish...
Areas of concern in relation to the editing of user Stan1900:
1) User is a single purpose account in relation to the films of Shannon Alexander. This goes back all the way to Dec 2017 when they edited the article for Katherine Langford (an actress who featured in the Alexander film 'The Misguided' [29]). The user’s account was then dormant until Nov 2024 when it began creating articles for Alexander’s films.
2) The user states that they have been in touch with Shannon Alexander and that requesting source materials when writing an article is standard practice and doesn't constitute a conflict of interest when there's no financial or professional relationship involved [30]. This is, however, wrong on both counts.
3) The articles created (plus draft) have clearly been of a promotional nature. [31] [32] [33]
4) User appears very interested in when articles will appear in mainspace and when they will appear on Google. This is typical of those interested in search engine optimisation, i.e. in publicity.
E.g. this thread [34] .
this thread [35]
this thread [36]
this thread [37]
and this thread [38]
5) Concerns have consistently been raised in those discussions that (a) the user is not forthcoming when asked about their association with Shannon Alexander (they have only denied being paid but avoid further clarification) and (b) the user appears to be involved primarily in promotional activity, as noted here [39]. Also, user:Cullen328 said that the overall pattern is highly unusual behavior consistent with a paid editing assignment [40].
Similarly (Cullen again): In that three weeks, the editor has been incredibly repetitive and persistent in pushing these three articles and dismissing the concerns expressed by several editors, not just me. They are not above making a false accusation against me. They consistently insist on special preferential treatment that is not extended to thousands of other editors who have written drafts. This is highly unusual behaviour. [41]
I entirely concur with the sentiments expressed by Cullen328 and would suggest that the PAID templates be replaced on the articles and draft created by this user. Axad12 (talk) 23:26, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone who hasn't yet had enough of Stan1900's relentless forum shopping over this issue may be interested in the thread they started an hour ago at the Neutral Point of View Forum, here [42].
Inevitably they've received the same response there that they've encountered elsewhere, this time from the redoubtable MrOllie. Axad12 (talk) 23:44, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here is one of several instances of Stan1900 claiming to be the license-holder of various of Alexander's film-posters. DMacks (talk) 00:28, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Very interesting. Thank you. Axad12 (talk) 00:33, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Stan1900 wrote a couple of days ago at the Help Desk that User:Cullen328 has been the primary editor maintaining the paid editing tag on the article That is a blatant falsehood. I have never once edited either It's Coming (film) or its talk page. I have never discouraged any uninvolved editor from removing the tag. I have simply tried to explain to Stan1900 why several editors (more now) have expressed concern about their pattern of editing. They have persisted with their axe grinding for many days. At Wikimedia Commons, they uploaded posters of films by Shannon Alexander in 2017, 2021 and 2023, with a legally binding licensing declaration that those posters were their "own work". A poster artist clearly has a paid editing relationship (or a deep and profound conflict of interest if unpaid). The only alternative explanation is that Stan1900 lied about these posters being their "own work" and therefore created a major multi-year copyright violation, which is illegal. Cullen328 (talk) 03:14, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Cullen. On that basis I have reinstated the 'undisclosed paid' tag to the relevant articles. The wording of that tag, of course, only states that there may have been an undisclosed paid situation - and there is evidently more than enough cause for concern in that regard.
Disregarding whether or not they are paid, the user is clearly a blockable promo-only account. They have wasted a great many users' time by forum shopping their transparent COI around in search of support which never arose (in, I think, 7 different threads now). Axad12 (talk) 03:59, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Axad12, Cullen328, your newest accusations require correction:
1. Following connected topics is normal Wikipedia behavior. Yes, I edited Langford's article about The Misguided, which naturally led to noticing significant gaps in coverage of Perth's independent film scene.
2. The poster licensing issue is a non-issue. The copyright holder assigned permission for Wikipedia documentation use. Copyright holders can authorize others to license their work - this is standard practice, not a violation or evidence of anything nefarious.
3. Regarding AI claims - you keep citing GPTZero without acknowledging its known 80% accuracy rate. My writing style comes from professional background. More importantly, even if AI tools were used for drafting (which they weren't), this violates no Wikipedia policies. Focus on content accuracy and sourcing, not unfounded assumptions about writing style.
4. Using appropriate Wikipedia channels isn't "forum shopping" - it's seeking proper review when talk pages receive no response. Each venue serves a different purpose: talk pages for initial discussion, help desk for guidance, NPOV for content neutrality issues.
5. Your pattern of escalating accusations - from paid editing to COI to AI use to promotional content - while removing properly sourced content suggests targeting rather than legitimate concerns. In fact, your apparent determination to suppress documentation of these artists' contributions raises questions. What's your motivation for trying to prevent coverage of their work despite reliable sources confirming its notability?
6. Claiming "everyone disagrees" while actively removing properly sourced content and making baseless accusations isn't consensus - it's coordinated targeting. The aggressive resistance to documenting these artists' widely recognized contributions to independent film is puzzling at best.
The focus should be on article content and reliable sources, not endless unfounded assumptions about contributors. I've provided reliable sources, followed guidelines, and explained everything clearly. What I haven't seen is any specific policy-based reason why properly sourced content should be removed. Stan1900 (talk) 04:48, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Stan1900, the poster licensing matter is in no way a non-issue.
You made a legally binding statement that those posters were your "own work", which was a lie according to what you just wrote above. You never provided any evidence that the copyright holder assigned permission for Wikipedia documentation use, which must be a written document from the copyright holder in legally precise language. Accordingly, I will be removing these copyright violations from the articles and the draft in question. Cullen328 (talk) 05:01, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate that you don’t intend to back down, but the simple fact is that a number of users over a range of threads oppose your edits and that represents a strong consensus contrary to what appears to be a promotional agenda. With regard to your 6 points above I believe that it is all old ground, but for clarification:
1) You clearly lied about the Langford edits, as demonstrated here [43].
2) The image issue has been recently discussed here by others.
3) Regarding AI, you are clearly producing 2 very different types of post, one type which GPTzero identifies as very high likelihood AI generated and one type which it identifies as very high likelihood human generated. If, as you say, you have a very formal way of writing which is distorting the results, this would produce a consistent spread of results lumped into the middle of the range and not two exceptionally disparate groups. Arguing that GPTzero isn't 100% accurate doesn't invalidate that point.
4) Going to multiple places trying to get a decision that you didn’t get at a previous discussion is forum shopping. You're currently holding down three simultaneous discussions in three separate locations (here, here [44] and here [45]) in which the same point (reinstatement of removed material) is being discussed. You have previously opened multiple threads trying to get COI templates removed.
5) Everything in this thread and elsewhere has been based on reasonable concerns raised by multiple users.
6) I think it is time for you to accept that there is a broad consensus against what you are trying unsuccessfully to achieve. Axad12 (talk) 06:26, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cullen328, from what I see on Commons, they "uploaded" the files in 2024 (their account itself was only created 30 November 2024), though they are for films that were themselves from 2017, 2022, 2023 and likewise the images are identified as having been created in or near those years. But you're definitely correct that Stan literally said "I, the copyright holder of this work" for each of them. DMacks (talk) 05:26, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cullen328, I completely reject your accusation that I lied about the poster images. I acted in good faith as an authorized representative of the copyright holder, who gave me explicit permission to use the images on Wikipedia. This is the first time you've even asked about the permissions, so your claim that I "never provided evidence" is entirely false. If you have doubts about the licensing, there are established processes for verifying image permissions. Publicly demanding private communications and unilaterally removing images based on unfounded accusations is not how it works. If an admin asks for documentation, I'll happily provide it through proper channels.
Your pattern of behavior - the personal attacks, bad faith assumptions, and removal of properly sourced content without discussion - is really concerning. It feels more like a witch hunt than a collaborative effort. I'm open to constructive feedback and working together to make these articles the best they can be. But I won't stand for baseless attacks on my character.
Let's focus on the actual content and policies, not personal vendettas. If you truly believe there's a permission issue, take it up with the appropriate admins. But stop making unilateral accusations and removals. It's disruptive and goes against waht Wikipedia stands for. Stan1900 (talk) 05:24, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do not have access to the non-public communications (and wouldn't disclose them even if I did), but someone did go through the proper process to document the license release for the files Stan uploaded to Commons, to the default satisfaction of those who handle that process on there. I'm saying this as a stand-alone detail, purely from a commons policy standpoint. DMacks (talk) 05:31, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
DMacks, you are correct that the file pages report that a licensing agreement was sent and received, and I apologize for not noticing that. But those three files still state that they are the "own work" of Stan1900, which is not the case. Cullen328 (talk) 05:44, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cullen328 DMacks, the unilateral deletion of these properly licensed images is completely unacceptable and appears to be part of a pattern of aggressive, disruptive actions.
1. As DMacks confirmed, proper licensing documentation was ALREADY verified through official Commons channels. This fact was deliberately ignored.
2. The "own work" designation relates to the upload as an authorized representative - a standard practice on Commons that is well understood by experienced editors.
3. Deleting multiple images across several articles over template semantics, especially after licensing was confirmed, is extraordinarily aggressive and disruptive to Wikipedia.
I will be filing for undeletion of all three images: "It's Coming", "The Misguided", and "Sex, Love, Misery: New New York" posters. The proper documentation exists and was previously verified. This kind of unilateral action without discussion or opportunity for clarification is exactly the type of disruptive behavior that damages Wikipedia. Stan1900 (talk) 16:21, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, "own work" means exactly what it says - that you made the poster yourself. You're not doing yourself any favors by denying something so obvious. MrOllie (talk) 16:29, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
this interpretation of "own work" on Commons is wrong because the designation refers to the upload itself being my own work as an authorized representative - a standard practice for authorized uploaders contributing licensed material with the proper permissions. As DMacks noted earlier, the proper licensing documentation was already verified through official Commons channels.
This is yet another example of interpreting template language in the most uncharitable way possible rather than addressing actual licensing substance. The fact remains: these images were properly licensed, documentation was verified, and they were serving a legitimate encyclopedic purpose before being improperly removed. Stan1900 (talk) 16:36, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Interpreting 'own work' to mean 'own work' is not 'uncharitable', it is the plain meaning of the words. Under your 'the upload was my work' literally every file uploaded on commons would be 'own work', which is obviously not the case.
If you didn't actually make these posters yourself, just admit you were mistaken so people can figure out what the proper source should be and get it set up properly for you. Working collaboratively with others in this case means you are going to have to own up when you make a mistake so someone can actually fix it. Digging in like this when you are so obviously wrong is just disruptive - actual disruption, not the 'someone disagrees with me' way you've been throwing around the word. MrOllie (talk) 16:42, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The {{Own work}} tag on commons is documented as "Use this to say that you personally created the entire original image by yourself (for example, you drew the picture on paper, you used a camera to take the photograph, you painted the picture on canvas, etc.). Do not use this tag for any images that you saw on any website, downloaded from any source, scanned from a book, newspaper, or magazine, or copied from anything." I tried a few upload methods on commons, and all of them forced me to choose between an option that says I created something entirely myself vs something I got from somewhere else. In particular, I verified that the Wizard method, when I choose the from-somewhere-else option, does not apply the 'own' tag. DMacks (talk) 17:28, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The images were removed as an editorial action within each enwiki article here on enwiki, not an administrative action for the files themselves on commons. DMacks (talk) 17:30, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
MrOllie DMacks, like I keep saying this continued focus on template semantics rather than substance is unproductive. As an authorized representative with explicit permission to upload these images, I used "own work" to indicate my authorized upload - a practice that many representatives use when contributing licensed material. The licensing documentation was properly submitted and verified through Commons channels, as DMacks noted earlier.
The removal of properly licensed images from articles over template terminology, rather than addressing any actual licensing concerns, is still needlessly disruptive. Images serve a legitimate encyclopedic purpose and have verified permissions.
If there's a preferred template format for authorized uploads, I'm willing to discuss. But using template semantics to justify wholesale content removal seems to be part of a broader pattern of finding technicalities to suppress properly sourced content about these films. Stan1900 (talk) 18:20, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If as you say you are an "an authorized representative" then you clearly have a conflict of interest despite your repeated denials. Theroadislong (talk) 18:24, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Acting as an authorized representative doesn't constitute as COI. Being authorized to handle tasks like verifying copyright or providing accurate information does not mean that contributions are biased or promotional.
Wikipedia defines COI as "an incompatibility between the aim of Wikipedia, which is to produce a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia, and an editor's personal or external relationships." My edits have been basically focused on adhering to standards of neutrality, verifiability, and reliability. How tiresome I must repeat this ad nauseum.
So, in summary being authorized to facilitate copyright or provide accurate details about a subject does not violate Wikipedia's COI policies. Stan1900 (talk) 19:02, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Where are you getting the definition "an incompatibility between the aim of Wikipedia..." from? WP:COI hasn't said that since 15 May 2015. Schazjmd (talk) 23:26, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Schazjmd Thank you for catching the outdated COI definition. That was an oversight on my part and I appreciate the correction. To be clear, my point was never to rely on an obsolete technicality but emphasize substance; My limited interactions with the filmmaker for fact-checking and image licensing do not constitute a substantive COI in terms of the content I've contributed, which is all neutrally written and based on independent reliable sources. I should have double-checked the current policy wording and I apologize for any confusion. The underlying principle remains that nothing improper has occurred . The focus belongs on content and policies, not unfounded aspersions. I'm here to collaborate in good faith. I hope we can move forward productively with that shared goal in mind. Stan1900 (talk) 00:01, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But where did you get that definition, @Stan1900? If there are pages that aren't in sync with WP:COI anymore, I'd like to reconcile them. Schazjmd (talk) 00:16, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
UPDATE: Stan1900 has now been indef blocked [46] following a thread at ANI [47]. Axad12 (talk) 23:26, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Kosove

AntiDionysius has tried to notify the user about WP:COI and based on the users' edit summaries, it's clear they have a COI. I restored to the version with AntiDionysius's revert because the previous version was too promotional. Myrealnamm (💬Let's talk · 📜My work) 01:44, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mmm, and the use of "our" in one of the edit summaries is also not a great sign. AntiDionysius (talk) 12:56, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am a direct representative and employee of Alcon who was approved to make these changes from [48] So, we have a paid editor who hasn't been responsive to talk page inquiries, and instead seem to be edit-warring their preferred version. Given that, could an admin consider pblocking them from the page to force them to use the talk page for edit requests? If they do, yay. If they sock or do anything else untoward, we can look at a regular promotional editing block. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 23:04, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A Celebration of Horses: The American Saddlebred

User:Atsme has previously self identified as Betty Wills. She has authored two thirds of the article content [49] and is listed in the article as the program's executive producer.

The subject of the article also has serious notability issues. The only citation that meets significant coverage is the piece from The American Saddlebred magazine which is shown on the right and is also likely unreliable as it is clearly marked as a promotion. 2A00:23C7:118C:A901:3D75:27EF:BBDF:1814 (talk) 21:43, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This filing borders on trolling. Just look at the talk page of that article, where Atsme has a declaration of her connection right at the top of the page, and there is a lengthy discussion about it – from 2016. If there are notability concerns, AfD is that-a-way. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:50, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with Tryptofish; Atsme is a solid and good editor who has made any required disclosures, and is fastidious about editing within the rules. This report is frivolous. BD2412 T 21:01, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also concur. This editor has already fulfilled their obligations regarding WP:COI. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:31, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Special:Contributions/213.8.97.219

213.8.97.219 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Israel Football Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

IP user admits to being employed by the subject of the article, but continues to blank the article's Controversy section after being informed of policy regarding paid editing. --Richard Yin (talk) 13:50, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Ron2999 is likely to be a sock made by the IP. I'm going to add a paid edit disclosure to the article. DACartman (talk) 18:10, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lyal S. Sunga/Long-term (two-decade) COI abuses

Lyal S. Sunga (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The article Lyal S. Sunga was created by 217.210.145.175, which is located in Sweden, in 2005, when Lyal S. Sunga just became a lecturer at the Raoul Wallenberg Institute of International Human Rights and Humanitarian Law. Later, the article was edited by 81.234.192.235, 90.224.52.72, 81.234.194.194, 90.231.183.154, among others, all located in Sweden, from 2005 to 2009.

Then, the article was edited by 93.41.230.58, 93.40.187.104, 93.47.142.126, among others, all located in Italy, when Lyal S. Sunga moved to Italy for UNODC.

In 2014, the article was edited by 83.166.225.44, which is located in Moscow, Russia, when Lyal S. Sunga was an OHCHR-Moscow Consultant.

In 2016, the article was edited by 83.84.186.217, which is located in the Netherlands, when Lyal S. Sunga was at the Hague Institute for Global Justice.

In 2017, the article was edited by 93.48.243.70, which is located in Italy, when Lyal S. Sunga returned to Italy for The American University of Rome.

In recent years, the articled has been edited mostly by IPs located in Italy, where Lyal S. Sunga has been living.

It is fair to say that more than 95% of the edits in this article were made by Lyal S. Sunga himself. I am unsure if the article should be kept or deleted for its advertising nature. JIanansh (talk) 23:43, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Eyer: has gone in and cleared out a lot of puffery and cruft. Schazjmd (talk) 00:11, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Taeyasu/Sample page

3 accounts with no contributions except to write promotional-sounding article User:Taeyasu/Sample page. Notably:

  • "Trend Alchemy" appears to be the name of a PR firm in Italy
  • The Trendalchemy account became inactive after being informed of paid-editing policy
  • The Dpatrioli account was created afterward and has not disclosed COI status.

I'd take this to SPI but the third account hasn't made any edits since I posted on its talk page. Thought I'd get a few more eyes on this in case the pattern continues. --Richard Yin (talk) 01:09, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard&oldid=1265260141"