I am requesting guidance regarding a COI publicly admitted to by editorEJA94.
To give some necessary background, EJA94 has been engaging in a series of controversial and disruptive edits throughout August 2025 on theAutism andApplied behavior analysis article pages that I andanother editor reverted andissued formal warnings in response to (four in total this month - five if you count a warning Iissued to an IP address that EJA94later admitted to editing under). EJA94 chose to respond to the most recent warnings (issued on August 27, 2025) in an unconstructive and inappropriate way, accusing the other editor and I of harassing them and then reaching out to individual administrators to plead for assistance.
On thetalk page of the first administrator they reached out to, in addition to repeating the unfounded claim that they were being harassed by the other editor and I, they explicitly stated that they were editing the Autism article as part of an unpaid externship for theAssociation for Science in Autism Treatment (which is a nonprofit primarily focused on the promotion of applied behavior analysis, an operant conditioning system commonly marketed an autism treatment). When the administrator they first reached out to responded by suggesting they declare their COI, EJA94 ignored them and later pleaded for help on another administrator'stalk page.
On EJA94's talk page, they were also advised by myself and the other editor who had issued previous warnings to formally declare their COI. The other editor and I followed up on the undeclared COI with EJA94 on the Autism article'stalk page, as well. However, other than repeating the claim that they weren't being paid and contradicting their previous statement that they were editing the Autism article on behalf of the Association for Science in Autism Treatment, EJA94 did not agree to take any action to formally declare their COI or appropriately limit their editing.
It's also extremely troubling that EJA94 made several edits to the article page for the Association for Science in Autism Treatment as recently as April and May 2025 (although they stated that those edits were made before the official start of their externship).According to the organization's website, their externships typically last between 12 and 18 months, so it's technically possible for an overlap to have occurred. It's further troubling that EJA94 said that they would not edit the article for that organization again without the organization's permission (as if they think directly editing the organization's article while formally associated with them would generally be permissible under Wikipedia's COI policy).
If you think this matter would be better handled on one of the other notice boards, please let me know. Otherwise, I would appreciate guidance as to what to do if EJA94 continues to refuse to declare a COI or appropriately limit their editing on the subjects of applied behavior analysis, autism treatment and similar topics while they are serving out their externship. They have already been formally warned to declare their COI (and informally reminded by at least three editors so far), so there's nothing further I can do as a non-administrator. I would also appreciate if you could give guidance directly to EJA94 as far as how to formally declare their COI and in what way (if any) you believe they should limit their editing activities.
On a related note, assuming the Association for Science in Autism Treatment is routinely assigning its externs to edit Wikipedia on its behalf (but not instructing them how to formally declare a COI), that's also something that should ideally be addressed (although that's probably beyond the scope of this discussion, as we can't compel private organizations to do or not do anything).DoItFastDoItUrgent (talk)06:34, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
Apologies, by the way, as I may have confused the order in which EJA94 directly reached out to the two administrators, and I left the warning on the the IP talk page in July (not August); however, those errors don't appear to materially impact the facts of the case. Thanks again for any potential advice or assistance.DoItFastDoItUrgent (talk)06:56, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
I'm sorry you're experiencing such frustration; I appreciate that you're asking others to give guidance directly. I mentored this editor for several years when they first started editing -- probably around 2007 -- with their former account, to which they lost the password. It was a slow start at first, but patience paid off, knowledge grew, they listened to me and took advice on board, and they eventually produced a good article. EJA is a good faith editor who will comply with policy when messages are understood. The templates used at EJA's talk page are probably confusing the situation -- very few of our canned talk messages are friendly or digestible -- less so for certain editors. AsWhatamIdoing mentioned on EJA's talk page, it may be time to starttalking to them, rather than placing templates.Here's what I told EJA on my talk. I understand how an editor like EJA can feel harassed when others don't understand her good faith attempts or dynamic IPs.[1][2] I notice that EJA hasnot edited since WAID's post, and since reaching out to me, and that you came here next. Perhaps someone else will take over in your place to communicate with EJA, as the templates could feel aggressive and could be exacerbating her frustration and confusion.Please do not assume that EJA is not being honest, or not trying to comply, as that isn't my experience with her. I have watchlisted her new talk page, and will weigh in as I can, but my husband is ill so I am not dependable now.SandyGeorgia (Talk)08:13, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
Hmmm ... I see you had already linked to my talk page above, mis-labeling it/me as "another administrator" -- I am not an admin, as that talk page section you linked to makes clear. So, if you had already seen the discussion on my talk page, I'm a bit concerned that youdidn't engage -- maybe we could try a bit of LessFastLessUrgent?SandyGeorgia (Talk)10:38, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
My edits to the Autism article was to fulfill hours toward one of my project goals (autism, autism therapies, and ABA-related pages on Wikipedia), but they were made independent of them (as those edits were never discussed with them nor did they know what the edits were to the Autism and ABA articles). I also apologize for the edit wars. I was better off taking it to the talk page first as I later did (instead of trying to constantly revert the edits), which two users ended up approving under the management section.
With regard to the May edit on the ASAT article (I might’ve mixed up the dates) was before I was told by ASAT that I needed to get approval from them prior to putting anything on their ASAT Wiki article. Also, I was told to switch my goal for now and take a break from editing Wikipedia all together until I finish my externship with them over the course of about 2 or 3 years.EJA94 (talk)12:02, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
EJA94 , thanks for weighing in and acknowledging the edit warring. Since you were (sometimes) editing on their behalf, you would have needed to put a notice on your talk page indicating that. And then, when one has declared a COI, it's best to never revert even once, and to immediately discuss any controversial or reverted edits on the article talk page. I was going to give you some samples that I have seen other editors use (when they were sometimes editing on behalf of an organization, and sometimes not), but it sounds like you are saying you will no longer be editing Wikipedia under their direction? Is that the case? If so, others might feel like you would still need some sort of declaration on your user page, because you do have an association with an organization. Do you no longer have to fulfill any Wikipedia editing hours with them? I am thinking a note on your user page might take the form of something similar to "I am will be working on an externship with <name of organization> through <date>, but will not be editing on their behalf. All edits from this account are independent of my externship" ... but I am not that well versed in this area, so let's see first what others say. I know that ABA was a topic you were always involved in, but it's possible now that others might find it problematic for you to edit certain articles -- more opinions needed. Best regards,SandyGeorgia (Talk)13:11, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
Yes, on the Autism and ABA article, it was only to fulfill hours—none of those edits were discussed with or involved anyone at ASAT (the May edit to the ASAT article wasn’t even to fulfill any hours and were independent of ASAT, the externship started in March or April, but Wiki wasn’t even one of my goals at the time). However, as I pointed out I will be taking a break from editing on Wikipedia until the externship is over (which will probably be in the next 2 or 3 years) and I’d be willing to put any sort of note on my user page about it too.EJA94 (talk)13:39, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
I agree with @SandyGeorgia that input from the administrators here on the noticeboard would be helpful and will wait for them to weigh in on the next steps you or anyone else should take to rectify this situation. However, I do find it unsettling that, after first stating you made the April/May edits to theAssociation for Science in Autism Treatment page before your externship started, you're now admitting that you made some or all of them after it had begun. Even if no one at that organization explicitly asked you to edit the article on their behalf, you should have formally declared the COI before making those edits and, instead of making them yourself, outlined the edits on the article talk page for unconflicted editors to consider making. If you were a brand new editor, I could understand not being aware that people closely associated with article subjects generally should declare a COI and refrain from direct editing, but, between your old username and this one, you've been editing on Wikipedia for almost two decades. Again, I will wait for others to weigh in on this.DoItFastDoItUrgent (talk)21:15, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
Almost two decades ago, if an edit was motivated equally by a desire to help yourself and to help Wikipedia, then it was declared to not be a COI at all, on the grounds that there is no 'conflict'. For example, Wikipedia wants vandalism reverted, and so does the subject of the vandalized article. As both Wikipedia and the article's subject are interested in the same outcome, there's no 'conflict of interest'.
SinceWikipedia:Nobody reads the directions, and especially not once you feel like you know 'the rules' or 'the way things are done around here', I would expect editors who started before the WMF's 2014 resolution against undisclosed paid editing to at risk of mistakenly applying the rules they learned originally, instead of the rules that are now in force. When this editor originally began editing, this page was called theWikipedia:Vanity Guidelines, and it was mostly about notability. The first version of this page that I remember reading would have declared you to have a COI with respect toApplied behavior analysis, because you appear to forego Wikipedia's interests (a balanced article with neutral tone) for your personal interest in taking any opportunity to disparage the treatment.
re "I agree with @SandyGeorgia that input from the administrators" ... I did not say that input from administrators was needed (I referred to "others" and "more opinions" needed). I also don't think -- absent diffs -- it's warranted to assume EJA94 had any prior encounters with or knowledge of our pages on COI. The prior account had a narrow range of editing interest, around autism, ABA and The Naked Brothers Band (which is indirectly related to Tourette syndrome viathe brothers' father).SandyGeorgia (Talk)07:26, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
At this point, whether they were unaware of COI policy or not is irrelevant. The fact is that they have admitted to a COI and are now aware. Although we could give a few more days to see if any uninvolved editors wish to weigh in, there does not seem to be any reason for EJA94 to delay placing the COI disclosure on their user page.DoItFastDoItUrgent (talk)07:55, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
EJA94 has said they are "willing to put any sort of note on my user page"; any "delay" would be because EJA94 is waiting for guidance as to how to do that, as indicated by our conversation above. I've been an editor here since 2005, and don't know what she needs to say, so please apply some patience.SandyGeorgia (Talk)08:11, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
EJA94 (and others) ... would this work as a notice on your user page?
{{User COI|1= Association for Science in Autism Treatment |text = I began a two- to three-year externship with ASAT on <fill in date>. I have not edited on their behalf, and will not be editing Wikipedia on their behalf, and any edits I make in the general area of autism are my own.}}
I also wanted to include in the message that I won’t be editing on Wikipedia (taking a break) until I finish my externship.EJA94 (talk)16:47, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
Anything like that is fine. There is no mandatory format. Also – last I checked – there was no requirement that any disclosure be on theUser: page itself. A note on an article'sTalk: page has traditionally been considered equal and sometimes even more helpful (because few editors actually check other people's User: pages). The first time you mentioned the relationship in a discussion or an edit summary put you in compliance with the WP:COI disclosure rules.WhatamIdoing (talk)17:30, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
EJA94 I agree with WhatamIdoing, but it may be easier in this case (that is, to close out this discussion) just to put the notice on your user page. Do you need further help on this (I'm having a rather horrible day, so hope someone else can help you finish this up)? It seem to me that since you won't be editing, it will be easier just to put it on your user page for now -- I could be wrong ;) How about:
{{User COI |1= Association for Science in Autism Treatment |text = I began a two- to three-year externship with ASAT on <fill in date>. I have not edited on their behalf, and will not be editing Wikipedia on their behalf. I also won't be editing Wikipedia at all until my externship at ASAT ends. Any edits I have made in the general area of autism are my own.}}
Thanks, Sandy and good look with your husband’s health! I send my regards. Also, to you and everyone else on here: my former account name ATC (AnnieTigerChucky) were my now dead cats’ names, so I’m really a “he”. :) I wish everyone well!EJA94 (talk)18:29, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
Hello, thank you for raising this at the noticeboard.
I would like to clarify that I am the subject of the article, Milind Sulekha Purushottam. I am not being paid or compensated for editing. My edits were made in good faith to provide accurate and reliably sourced information.
I acknowledge the conflict of interest policy and agree not to directly edit my biography. Going forward, I will suggest changes on the Talk page using theTemplate:edit COI template, supported by independent sources such as Lokmat Times, Ahmedabad Mirror, Punjab Kesari, and others.
I appreciate the community’s guidance and will fully respect Wikipedia’s policies to ensure the article remains neutral and encyclopedic.TheMilindSP (talk)20:54, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
Thank you for pointing that out. I understand your concern regarding the reliability of several of the sources and the issues with WP:NEWSORGINDIA. I will avoid using questionable or sponsored sources and instead rely only on stronger, more independent coverage such as Lokmat Times, Ahmedabad Mirror, Punjab Kesari, Republic Bharat, UNI India.
Seeing from the 2024 discussion that there were multiple unresponsive accounts working on this article, I am wondering what is the best way to protect this article. Blocking the account clearly leads to a new account continuing the promo on behalf of Šaper. That is not in the best interest of a reliable encyclopedia.The Bannertalk13:16, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
Dear user: The Banner, thank you for your message. Let's start from the beginning, concerning the edit from 2024. We are fully aware and respect Wikipedia guide lines and honor them. The comment you made from 2024 was that is was a self promotion edit. That is simply not true. I am in charge of making edits on behalf of Srđan Šaper and as you mention have been making edit since 2013. Not only for Srđan but for other projects of his. You mention that in 2024. was promo which it was not. He sold part of his business and that was the only edit we made to the page. See "In January 2024. I&F Grupa has divested a part of its business in SEE (advertising and media agencies in Serbia, Croatia, Slovenia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro, North Macedonia, Albania, and Bulgaria), signaling a shift in focus towards the development of other activities within its portfolio – strategic communication, content creation, film and TV production, and others business initiatives. This strategic move comes as a result of an agreement with the Slovak company Across Finance. Agencies McCann, UM and DRV, which were owned by I&F Grupa until January 2024, now operate within Across Media Holding, which is part of Across Finance." That is not self promotion but updating the text which at that point was not true. Let me explain the edits I made the other day. Again no self promotion and we will add links for you verification if need be. We changed the order of paragraphs to the english version and also mentioned the new and current I&F Grupa standing. We linked some old movies and projects of mister Srđan Šaper and also changed his Wikipedia picture which we have every right so, seeing that its our job to maintain the image of Srđan Šaper. So the only fact checked the new 2025 plan and updated it. Apart from the picture we added his two links. So apologies for the confusion, but as you can see we are not selling or promoting anything its just a simple page for a man who wants all of his accomplishments to be current and fresh. Kind regards Pčelica Matica.Pcelica Matica (talk)13:50, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
Dear user: Cabayi, my job is not only that. I don't only do Wikipedia. The edit we made had nothing to do with self promotion, it was like I said only and edit about I&F Grupa and picture change. No other user edited that change so we had to do it. Every edit we make it backed up by links and sources from Serbia. Nothing we do or change is of our own accord, and all of that is true.. So I am not being paid to edit, this was a simple edit that no user saw and we the creators of Srđan Šaper page did.Pcelica Matica (talk)14:14, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
You're paid. You're editing the article with which you have a COI. You have not made the required disclosure. If you wish to quibble about the details of yourundisclosed paid editing you can do so in an unblock request.Cabayi (talk)14:21, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
“Don’t only do that” - so you do do it. It doesn’t matter if it’s your whole job or a part of your job - you are paid to edit. That’s where the full stop is, that’s where it ends. You’re subject toWP:PAID.Danners430tweaks made08:26, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hello, I am Dr. Arjan Hura. I have prepared a draft biography in my user sandbox.
Because I am the subject, I have a conflict of interest and will not move or submit the draft myself. I would like to request that an uninvolved editor review the draft and, if appropriate, move it to Draft: space or mainspace.
For transparency, I have disclosed my COI on my user page. The draft includes independent sources such as EyeWorld, Ophthalmology Times, Healio, The Ophthalmologist (Power List), Medium, Los Angeles Magazine, Castle Connolly, Super Doctors, PubMed-indexed research, and a Springer textbook chapter.
The page is awaiting review by an independent editor. I don't see evidence of notability myself, but all is above board and no additional action is required - though I have moved it to draft space per the request.Dorsetonian (talk)18:30, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Biomedical sock mess
A sock ringWP:Sockpuppet_investigations/SaintDismas has systematically added citations to a small group of authors in the biomedical field, includingDavid Callaway andZimei Bu. Each sock gets on, makes about 20 other edits, and then makes substantive additions to articles concerning the work of these scientists. Some of the additions should clearly IMO be removed, but many are adding a citation in response to an earlier-left cn tag. (I haven't carefully investigated whether the cn tags were left by someone else in the sock ring.) Should I remove such additions (as a COIed editor should not be making these decisions, especially not in this deceptive manner), or leave a talk page message in the article? I did the latter atTalk:Amyloid#COI, but it looks like there will be a large number of similar situations.
It would be helpful if someone with expertise in biomedical topics helped out here. FYI notified sockmaster, but not the large number of blocked socks. Apologies if this is the wrong forum to bring the question.Russ Woodroofe (talk)08:21, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
This has been going on for years. The edit patterns are both very similar, and also do not "feel" like student writing. I severely doubt student editing.Russ Woodroofe (talk)09:02, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
I notifiedWT:MED. Many student editing messes go on for years, as the professors direct the edits, which then look similar. If they are graduate students, the writing could be at a high level.SandyGeorgia (Talk)09:06, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
FWIW, I tracked a user who went through multiple accounts and IP addresses (all associated with a specific location), adding citations to usually primary research by a group headed by a single individual (search for Pospíšilová Š). Each paper would be published, then immediately added as a source for a statement of its conclusions as settled fact.Guy(help! -typo?)09:26, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
That contains multiple third-party "attribution-required" images from commons, without attribution, and at least one outright copyright violation. Classy.DMacks (talk)09:43, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
I resent the personal imprecations at the contributors to that article. Callaway is creative, original and significant, in my decades-long personal opinion. And, no, I have never been anything close to a student of his!!?Cuzkatzimhut (talk)14:28, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
Imprecations? I simply and merely asked, on your talk, if you had a COI, as one should in these cases. And then I accepted your answer and moved on.[3]SandyGeorgia (Talk)15:31, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
Answering the question above:Wikipedia:Wiki Education Foundation only handles their own students, not students in general. Unless these profs are signing up with WikiEdu to teach classes to edit Wikipedia, then Wiki Edu can do nothing.
As for what we can do, protecting the bios at theWP:XCON level should reduce touting in those pages pretty significantly, but won't stop theWP:REFSPAM.
There's also the possibility of direct contact. Has anyone tried finding these profs on social media and saying "Um, we've been having a problem, and if you're asking your interns or other people to edit Wikipedia, please stop, or at least ask them to useTemplate:Edit COI"?WhatamIdoing (talk)16:14, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
In the past, I have been successful in having WikiEdu people reach out to profs, even if they weren't registered with them as profs. i would be very hesitant to email a stranger I met on the internet, especially with something sensitive.SandyGeorgia (Talk)16:20, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
Additional comments, after spending the morning on this. I am seeing lots of insertion of articles byDavid Callaway (mainly) and coauthors likeZimei Bu; possibly others, but those are the ones that jumped out at me. I also see a few insertions of overview articles by Ewen Callaway, who may be a relative of David. I am seeing insertion ofImage:Kinesin_walking.gif andImage:Protein translation.gif; some of these are probably called for, but probably not as many copies as I see (and copyright might be complicated). I am seeing some point of view on Feynmann, which I do not completely understand, and which may not be well supported. I went through all of the socks, not completely consistently, and undid much of the stuff that is obvious and/or recent. I left COI tags at the following articles:Molecular machine,Lattice gauge theory,Protein dynamics,Quantum triviality,Neutron spin echo,Intrinsically disordered proteins,Protein structure. I may have missed some material: in particular, I think that any articles containing "David Callaway", "Callaway DJ", "Callaway DJE" are a bit suspect, as are any that contain "Bu Z". E.g.,Lattice gauge theory may be bordering on vandalism, with 7 / 18 references naming Callaway. Some of the topic articles might also need to be sent to AfD, but I am not enough of a subject expert to be able to sort this out. Tl;dr: I did a fair bit of work, but more remains.Russ Woodroofe (talk)12:52, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
Wow, that was a massive job. Thanks for all that work. If I ever meet you in Real Life, I shall surely wash a load of socks for you.DMacks (talk)16:15, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
Yet, when done with COI/socking, we may end up with indiscriminate entries -- which could be obscuring what issignificant. I wish Cuzkatzimhut would give us more to work with -- so far I'm not finding anything I can work with, but I haven't yet entered a declaration on the AFD.SandyGeorgia (Talk)16:24, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
Not sure what is required, and I am preparing for transatlantic travel, and thus lack the time and gumption asked for. DJC's Google scholar top listing has two important HEP papers of his from the 80s, but I am not competent to judge his top biophysics winners, as though I'd be writing letters of support for him to get official recognition... Perhaps you might email him directly to ask trenchant questions.Cuzkatzimhut (talk)16:50, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
1OutstandingSeason (hereafter 1OS, but previously known as 24eeWikiUser, 12eeWikiUser, 6eeWikiUser and MrTallBoy) has for years been a prolific creator of130+ biographical and business articles. About a third of them have been deleted over the years. While some are on notable topics and are non-promotional, most appear to be non-notable low-level political officials, business executives and company profiles with a promotional tinge, as is often pointed out in deletion discussions. In an AN/I thread earlier this year, 1OSdenied receiving payment for any articles in response to aquestion fromPhil Bridger, but has been warned on potential conflicts of interest numerous times ([4],[5],[6],[7]) and his May 2023 unblock byJayron32 wasconditional on scrupulously adhering to COI rules.
As a New Page Reviewer, I have long found 1OS's articles to be excessively promotional of their subjects. My suspicion of COI was triggered by two recent articles:Dirk Wagener andIlyas Ali Hassan. On both, he uploaded photos ofuploaded a high-quality portrait Wagener andAli Hassan to Commons under dubious "own work" claim -- high quality portrait photos, and the one of Wagener appears to be an official United Nations photo. However, neither photo appeared online prior to the dates 1OS uploaded them, so there was no obvious copyright violation. It seemed unlikely that he would have been a portrait photographer for both a UN diplomat in Fiji and a Somali diplomat in Tanzania, and if he were the official photographer he would have known them and had some kind of formal relationship.I asked 1OS about it on his talk page. In response, heclaimed he had no connection to the subjects of these photos, then headmitted "I credited them as “own work” based on how I obtained them" andadmitted that "The photos were shared with me by people who had the rights to distribute them." Heclaimed he received the rights to the photos but has refused to say who sent them to him anddenied that representatives of Ali Hassan or Wagener sent the photos.
There is a very curious history withIlyas Ali Hassan's page. Between 24 and 25 May, 1OS created a sandbox that he used to write a biography of Ali Hassan.The May 25 version of this sandbox was copied by a brand-new user namedUser:Abaas2025 on 26 May into adraft. After this wastwicedeclined at AfC, a few hours later1OS moved the draft to mainspace. 1OSdenied any coordination with Abaas2025, but the overlap in activity and close timing (how did brand-new editor Abaas2025 know to look for 1OS's sandbox?) is extremely odd and suggests some kind of coordination. Since 1OSwill not answer questions transparently about who sent the high-quality photos to him, I can only guess there is some kind of undisclosed conflict going on and am bringing it here for the community's consideration.Dclemens1971 (talk)19:37, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
Initial observation is that 33 percent of their 137 page creations have been deleted. That does NOT include the number that are currently at AfD awaiting a close. Despite this, user still movedIlyas Ali Hassan to mainspace despite two separate declines at AfC. The responses ontheir talk page of avoiding the COI question without giving a direct answer is a good sign of COI. Note that the sandbox issue with Abaas2025 may not be a coordinated effort, but possibly someone with a similarCOI interest with getting that page live. --CNMall41 (talk)20:17, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
I would like to clarify a few points regarding the recent actions involving my edits and contributions.
I mainly contribute to Wikipedia with a focus on content related to underrepresented communities, especially in Africa. My goal has always been to expand coverage while following the relevant guidelines as best as possible,1OutstandingSeason - Pages Created - XTools.
That said, I feel it is important to point out that I have had a difficult history with user DClemens. Over time, they have nominated several articles I created for deletion, and on Wikimedia Commons I received multiple warnings and was blocked twice following their public accusations. In the past, I openly discussed this on my talk page and told them how I felt about the harshness of some of these actions from a single editor. I asked them that if issues are identified, I be corrected or advised first rather than immediate punitive steps. Despite this, they have continued to nominate my work for deletion, including failed sockpuppetry allegations and repeated warnings for a low-rate copyright violations. I have even changed my account name twice in the past in an effort to reduce the scrutiny I felt I was under.
I have, on more than one occasion, asked if this repeated targeting of my edits could be considered wikihounding, though DClemens has denied it. Nonetheless, the pattern has not changed: recently they nominated a picture I uploaded for deletion and tagged several pages I worked on with COI based on only assumptions. The sad part is all of the accusations being raised against me are not based on technical issues with the edits themselves but rather on assumptions about my intentions. This puts me in constant danger of being blocked or unfairly labeled as untrustworthy, despite the fact that I am only trying to contribute constructively.
I am sharing this context not to argue with them, but so that others are aware of the repeated scrutiny I receive from the same editor. I will continue to do my best to follow policies and improve content, and I welcome feedback that helps me align better with Wikipedia’s standards.1OutstandingSeason (talk)16:52, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
I've previously recommended you take your accusations of hounding to AN/I, and I'd suggest you do so here. PerWP:HOUNDING,Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles. You have repeatedly uploaded copyright violations both to Wikipedia and to Commons, and you have edited in a way that indicates a conflict of interest and/or undisclosed paid editing, all of which are clear issues of policy. There are no assumptions made about your intentions. There are legitimate questions about how and from whom you obtained high-quality photos of subjects you wrote about that are not available online and that you uploaded as your own work. I suggest you answer these questions here.Dclemens1971 (talk)17:00, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
Wikipedia is a large community built on collective contribution. I find it concerning that my edits have been under individual scrutiny from you for more than 15 months. This level of focus on a single editor feels disproportionate and discouraging, and I would appreciate if discussions could remain centered on content and policy rather than extended personal oversight.1OutstandingSeason (talk)17:07, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
I will just say that "own work" means thatyou yourself made the images. If you received the image from someone else, then they (presuming they are the copyright holders), are the ones whom you should note as the author.Perryprog (talk)15:07, 4 September 2025 (UTC)
Editing and addingWP:OR to own BLP and pages of their employers, without any COI disclosures. User has previosuly been warned on their talk page and continued COI editing.Longhornsg (talk)20:39, 4 September 2025 (UTC)
Despite having been warned twice (the first time over a decade ago),Njandavis continues to edit articles about herself and her ex-husband. No effort has been made to propose changes on the articles' talk pages; no disclosure of conflict of interest has been made.MarconiCheese (talk)15:10, 6 September 2025 (UTC)
I believe that the editorMorbidthoughts, who has been actively participating in the discussion ofZak Smith page, may have aconflict of interest. The activity of Morbidthoughts regarding the page includes accusations of sockpuppeting, though it wasdiscussed and rejected by other editors, and generally seems to fit the definition ofWP:Bludgeoning. When several editors, including myself, pointed it out at their Talk page, Morbidthoughts claimed that they have no conflict of interest. However, there is evidence that Morbidthoughts may have a personal connection with witnesses in Zak Smith's recent lawsuits, and there was communication between them regarding Smith (followingWP:Outing recommendations, I e-mailed the evidence to Wikipedia Foundation, on August 29th, without response).White Spider Shadow (talk)23:09, 3 September 2025 (UTC)
So what is your relationship to Zak and these witnesses that you know any of this? I don't even know who they are/were identity-wise to confirm if I do know them personally. The other issue is if I do know the witnesses, am I editing based on my knowledge of or relationship with them? Right now, I haven't.Morbidthoughts (talk)23:29, 3 September 2025 (UTC)
I'm an admin who's been watching this subject and talk page since long before I picked up the mop, and the page remains a cesspool of sockpuppetry and connected editing.The page's fourth edit is by the subject themself in 2005 and evennineteentwenty years later they seem to have had no difficulty pulling fourteen low edit-count AI-using usernames out of a hat to populate an RFC in their favor.BusterD (talk)23:35, 3 September 2025 (UTC)
White Spider Shadow is being subtly deceptive regarding the sockpuppetry question. TheWP:SPI case opened regarding them remains open[8]. A checkuser demonstrated that either the accounts were unrelated or using very advanced proxy software however the SPI is seeking a behavioural assessment notwithstanding the CU. This is in part because White Spider Shadow is a participant in a group of editors whos comportment is so uniform as to be functionally indistinguishable from socking even if they are, in fact, distinct people. This COI filing is tiptoeing right up to the line ofWP:OUTING and is remarkably ill-advised.Simonm223 (talk)11:24, 4 September 2025 (UTC)
In addition, the consensus of everyone on the talk page was that while they may not be sockpuppets, they are definitelymeatpuppets based on very low edit counts, very, very few edits on anything other than Smith and very similar posting style and content.MilesVorkosigan (talk)17:47, 5 September 2025 (UTC)
MorbidThoughts' last edit toZak Smith was in 2022, almost three years ago. In regard to the recent bludgeoning claims, I see that MorbidThoughts has commented 23 times on talk this year, and not since 2020 otherwise. White Spider Shadow has commented 62 times, almost three times as often over the same period. In going over the comments made by MorbidThoughts I am not seeing any real evidence of bludgeoning.
@White Spider Shadow Actually, I don't think you'll get much of a response from the WMF; they'll probably tell you to go to volunteers instead. I would instead email theconflict of interest queue and cease mentioning this onwiki until you get a reply from there. Personally speaking, it seems highly unlikely Morbidthoughts has a conflict of interest; for years they have focused on editing and cleaning up these sorts of controversies regarding BLPs.Moneytrees🏝️(Talk)18:18, 5 September 2025 (UTC)
If your "evidence" is the same on-wiki "evidence" presented at the SPI by one of your pals I suspect it will garner no response being honest. Because it was not actually evidence of a COI at all and, in fact, was evidence that, five years ago, Mr. Smith was already employing meat puppets.Simonm223 (talk)15:52, 7 September 2025 (UTC)
I have replied to you before that I will not publish any information that could lead toWP:Outing an editor. I don't see any point in further discussion thereof, since my position is not likely to change.White Spider Shadow (talk)20:39, 7 September 2025 (UTC)
I have not, nor would I ever, encourage you to post anything that would constituteWP:OUTING. There was information presented about @Morbidthoughts by one of the subjects ofthis SPI inquiry that was based around a non-deleted on-wiki statement from five years ago. However, despite being characterized by that person as evidence of a CoI it was actually the opposite. I am not actually asking you anything. I amtelling you that, ifthis is your "evidence" of a CoI then you will be very unlikely to get any response from anybody. Because it is not, in any way, evidence of a CoI.Simonm223 (talk)11:46, 8 September 2025 (UTC)
Giulio Vita, one of the named founders of the film festival. An account called "Giuliovita" makes up for over 43% of edits, including the initial page. Ignoring trivial edits, this account can be credited with almost the entire article. See[9]Assuming Occam's razor,WP:AGF shouldn't apply here - an account named "Giuliovita" is probably Giulio Vita himself.Monkeysmashingkeyboards (talk)22:48, 4 September 2025 (UTC)
Hello, part of it was written by me but not all of it. Especially the parts that needed correction or celebratory tone to change. The list of Awards, which is what I enrich recently, is public knowledge and is just the list of the films awarded. Is more a celebration on those films. I added almost 50 articles by serious media to back up every added.Giuliovita (talk)07:09, 5 September 2025 (UTC)
PerXTools, the next three primary contributors after the aforementioned COI user are all single purpose accounts. I haven't fully checked but looking at the revision history I can see at least two more new accounts having edited recently. I'm presumingUser:Tereeditsno5 is one of Giuliovita's other accounts given the edit summaries about celebratory tone line up with what has been said above. I'm not sure really what's going on but if all editing was above board (which I don't think it is, I see a lot of unsourced material and other things which from a quick check fail verification) then why are so many SPAs involved in this article?ToeSchmoker (talk)08:02, 5 September 2025 (UTC)
I'm looking into it further,User:Liam LeN's only 2 English wikipedia were onLa Guarimba International Film Festival, and their edits are pretty sizable - 2,500 characters isn't small change. Their other 2 edits were on the French wikipedia page, which also seems to be subject to COI. See[10]
Why are you been so rude? I am not creating other accounts. This is the only one. We are a big community of artists who wants to help reach out more people. That's it. All the living people that are quoted, have been really here and there are plenty articles supporting that fact. Maybe there is not an article for every single line but that does not mean that it didn't happened. I am part of an organisation that has been talked to in the Italian Parliament (official acts), The New York Times, Repubblica. What else do you need? And with my account I have been helping, when I have time, to amplify the voices that are not linked to me in anyway.Giuliovita (talk)16:53, 5 September 2025 (UTC)
I propose weDelete per WP:EVENT. This festival lacks sufficient coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject to establish notability. Despite operating for 12 years, online search yields only approximately 11 pages of results, predominantly from regional Italian media rather than significant coverage in major film industry publications. The existing sources appear largely based on press releases rather than substantial independent analysis. No evidence of lasting significance or impact on the film festival landscape beyond local/regional interest.Monkeysmashingkeyboards (talk)21:18, 8 September 2025 (UTC)
Yes - Searching for the festival using the exact name([12]) results in only 11 pages of results, and it seems safe to assume that this Wikipedia page is benefitting their appeared legitimacy, and uses Wikipedia forWP:PROMO.Monkeysmashingkeyboards (talk)22:35, 8 September 2025 (UTC)
Per their own website they use the same name in both English and Italian. Film and festival are (in this context) the same in both languages so I don't think the Italian press are going out of their way to translate the name differently - for what it's worth I have a grand total of four results for "La Guarimba Festival Internazionale" and even then they're all forLa Guarimba, festival Internazionale blablabla. Much the same for "Festival Internazionale La Guarimba"ToeSchmoker (talk)12:05, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
This has been tagged since 2023. Would recommend removing all unsourced content at this point. It can be added back once there is someone willing to reliably source it.--CNMall41 (talk)17:45, 5 September 2025 (UTC)
In accordance withWikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure#Reporting undisclosed paid editors andTryptofish (talk·contribs)'s advice atWikipedia talk:Paid-contribution disclosure#suspicions discussion, I'm here for feedback on my suspicions about two editors. I want to be clear that I have no proof, nor the mop to collect such: this is entirely based on my intuition about precedent at an article and these accounts' editing patterns. I'm here to ask for assistance (for checking behind-the-scenes with a mop, or just to have somebody else look over my thoughts and give their input) because of that uncertainty. Also, if I am truly in the wrong place, please let me know!
In October 2022 and April 2023,FarmGirlRR4 (talk·contribs) edited the article. In the discussion atTalk:Kristin Goodwin#update, they had personal unpublished knowledge about the subject, and saidI have a copy of [Goodwin's] valid marriage license. They have only ever edited that article and its talk page. This editor appears to have a professional or personal relationship with Goodwin, and though they haven't edited since then, I added this account to a{{connected contributor}}.
Twenty days later,Pagecd (talk·contribs) edited the article. In the discussion atTalk:Kristin Goodwin#Changes to Wikipedia, they said,after discussing with [Goodwin] personally, she wants these changes as they are the truth and read better for the end user. […] I find it very disturbing that a person doesn't have the freedom to make corrections on their own Wikipedia page without harassment. Goodwin is not making changes in her own interests, but would like the truth to be told. Shall she just live with lies on Wikipedia? They have only ever edited that article and its talk page. This editor appears to have a professional or personal relationship with Goodwin, and though they haven't edited since then, I added this account to a{{connected contributor}}.
To me, these plainly establish that Goodwin has in interest in the development and state ofthe Wikipedia article about her, and has employed (whether formally or informally) others to edit on her behalf.
On 4 and 6 March 2025,Soistafir (talk·contribs)made eleven edits to the article.I largely reverted their edits on 10 March, though tried to incorporate what I could of their contributions. As best I can tell, they have never before or since edited in this subject area. They also never edited the article again. It is a relatively new account, and the edit history has a pattern of short-term intense editing of disparate corporate topics, sometimes w/o ever returning to them.
On 31 July 2025,AnadoluYazarı (talk·contribs)made eleven edits to the article. I,today, largely reverted their edits, though again tried to incorporate what I could. As best I can tell, they have never before edited in this subject area. They, too, are a new account with a pattern of short-term intense editing of topics and then never returning to them again.
I don'tknow anything untoward is happening here; I'm also not suggesting any other wrongdoing at all. This biographical article just has a history of disclosed interference by its subject. And since then, two other accounts have: been created relatively recently; intensely edited the article, as they are wont to do over varied topics/articles; never returned to the article; and never utilized a talk page. All of this together just… feel kinda suspicious to me, and I wanted to get others' feedback. Again, a thousands apologies if I've approached this inappropriately or in the wrong venue! Thank you, all! —Fourthords |=Λ= |19:49, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
@Fourthords, I appreciate that many of your edits were constructive, but I don’t see a strong rationale for replacing the gender neutral term “aviator” with “airman.” Even if the US Army continues to use traditional terminology, that alone doesn’t make it the best choice here. In light of ongoing debates about inclusive language and the impact of the US Army and the TRUMPs administration’s policy restricting transgender military service on LGBT service members, this change can read as unnecessarily exclusionary, so keeping a gender neutral term seems more appropriate in this context.
As for your question about why I don’t return to pages I’ve edited: I generally avoid re-editing the same pages for the reasons you mentioned COI concerns, maintaining neutrality, and avoiding edit warring, as Wikipedia requires. I actually prefer not to edit the same pages too often. But here something is clearly wrong: replacing gender-neutral terms with “airman” marginalizes women and LGBT people, undermines neutrality, and drags in discriminatory standards. I’m stepping in to revert the changes, restore reliable sources, and document the fix on the talk page. But in this case something is clearly wrong: replacing gender-neutral terms with “airman” marginalizes women and LGBT people, undermines neutrality, and introduces discriminatory standards.Soistafir (talk)22:38, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
Sorry! That account wasn't really the subject of my request so much as Soistafir and AnadoluYazarı, so my apologies if I didn't go into as much depth and detail as I could.Not only did they claim to have an actualcopy of the valid marriage license, and that[s]he divorced in 2020—for which the only source that's been found/cited is a blog that was published well later, that account claimed to know thatGen Goodwin retired Dec 31 2021, which while possibly correct, neither they, nor anyone else, nor I have found a published reliable secondary source for. —Fourthords |=Λ= |03:09, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
Hello, I’d like to raise some concerns regarding the current MasTec article:
Broken Sources: At least five of the references currently listed return 404 errors when clicked, meaning they no longer provide verifiable information. This affects verifiability, which is a core Wikipedia policy (WP:V). Outdated or inaccessible sources reduce the reliability of the article.
Promotional Tone: Several sections of the article appear to read more like a corporate press release than a neutral encyclopedia entry. For example, passages describing projects and acquisitions focus heavily on the company’s growth and achievements without balancing independent analysis or critique. This may conflict with WP:NPOV and WP:PROMO.
Over-reliance on Primary Sources: A significant number of citations are press releases or company-generated materials. According to Wikipedia’s sourcing guidelines (WP:RS, WP:PRIMARY), primary sources should be used sparingly and always balanced by reliable, independent coverage.
Suggested Improvements:
Replace or remove broken references with archived versions (via Wayback Machine) or updated reliable sources.
Reframe promotional content into neutral, encyclopedic language.
Supplement the article with more independent, secondary sources (such as reputable news outlets, industry publications, or academic references).
This page is primarily for determining whether aspecific editor has aconflict of interest (COI) for a specific article. You haven't identified aspecific editor. You should try discussing this at the article talk page first and otherwise follow theWikipedia:Dispute resolution procedural policy. This is not the place to start. --Pemilligan (talk)22:51, 18 September 2025 (UTC)
This new editor has only ever edited a single page, the Environics page, to add "Environics Analytics". Concerns:Environics Analytics is owned by Bell Media, and is already described on the List of Assets Owned by Bell Media page. The editor’s narrow focus raises the possibility of promotional editing.Neutral point of view: The added content was not written neutrally and included promotional phrasing (see WP:NPOV, WP:PROMO).
Verifiability: The material was unsourced or sourced only to primary company materials (WP:VERIFY, WP:NOTADVERTISING).
Redundancy: The company is already described in other appropriate places, which suggests duplication rather than encyclopedic value.
I reverted the edit per policy. However, the user added back their promotional editing. Guidance on whether further action (such as page protection or discussion with the user) is warranted would be appreciated.
I reverted this IP editor's reinstatement of the content (which was inappropriate due to its tone and sourcing), and also removed a lot of other promotional text and external links that were present for 2 years prior. I will watch and see if this gets reverted again. --Reconrabbit14:28, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
At the top of this page (highlighting in original) is:
This page should only be used when ordinary talk page discussion has been attempted and failed to resolve the issue, such as when an editor has repeatedly added problematic material over an extended period.
Where did that discussion take place? The only entry on the IP's talk page is a notification about this report.; they do not seem to have been advised on our CoI & paid editing policies.Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing);Talk to Andy;Andy's edits15:57, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
Thank you for pointing that out. You’re right, I should have left a note on the editor’s talk page before raising this here. Appreciate the reminder. I'll make sure to do that in the future.
Perhaps I'm imagining things, but I have the impression that there is serious COI or more likelyWP:PAID editing involved with articles surrounding the company kovai.co. We have
Document360, created byUser:Lexrochanis on 7 May 2025 (they haven't edited since that day), marked as reviewed byUser:Cinder painter on 11 June 2025 (they were blocked as a sock later), and draftified by me. It has been recreated byUser:Bennak-cio on 22 August 2025
On 25 August 2025 it wasadded to Knowledge Management Software byUser:Jubinakp: it was their first edit since 2020, when they hadattempted the same
Saravana Kumar was changed from an unrelated redirect into an article on 29 April 2025 byUser:Evan Chumpino (who hasn't edited since): the redirect was reinstated, but thenUser:Bobbis Singerrrr again turned it into an article on 20 June 2025, their latest day of editing so far...
Having a look on google shows Saravana Kumar as the founder of Document360... I'll have a quick review of the articles and leave messages on the relevant user pages. Might be worth passing this over toWP:SPI as the admins there can have a look into sockpuppetry more. Thanks,EncodedTalk 💬17:47, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
It's not generally helpful to say that a newbie is aWikipedia:Single-purpose account. They edited for two days. Working on the same article for two days is not an unusual or suspicious thing.
Whilst I agree with WhatamIdoing generally this does seem suspicious. The account hasn't edited at all since they received the COI message and most of their editing appeared to be around controversies.EncodedTalk 💬17:59, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
Same paragraph of unsourced text added to this BLP by these editors.Dr.Sonia.Anand has replied on their Talk pageas far as I know there is no conflict of interest. I am just trying to update my personal life and career sections.Tacyarg (talk)14:19, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
I wouldn't say that this is anything that out of the ordinary for a act of their size. Edits like this[14] attached to a school block imply some fanbase activity, which is at most annoying rather than malicious. IPs geolocate everywhere and range a lot in behaviour and existing edit history. I'll drop the two accounts that have edited somewhat recently a{{welcome COI}} + a pre-emptive apology for if they're just fans. If the band has talked about the Wikipedia article, then that's probably why there's so many newbies. You can always leave a note on the talkpage so other editors know what's going on there....GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋04:18, 21 September 2025 (UTC)
Have you notified the editors to whom you refer, that you are discussing them here?
Have you or anyone else prevsiously attempted to discuss this with them?
I fixed your attempt to notify the user. Technically, you should attempt a conversation first, but since the user's only edit was almost two years ago, it hardly seems necessary or likely to succeed. I think reverting the edit is all that was needed, so I've done that. --Pemilligan (talk)04:27, 4 October 2025 (UTC)
The editor Curiouskaon has created an over-the-top promotional article about Hawaa Al Mansoori and is preventing other editors from making the article less promotional. The user appears to have a COI with the subject of the article. They have this note on their userpage: "This user has publicly declared that they have a conflict of interest regarding these Wikipedia articles: Hawaa Al Mansoori, Noura Al Kaabi. I am not personally close to these individuals, but I have met them professionally and other notable UAE government officials as part of my work over multiple years."[15] In a separate comment, the user noted they had been approached in person to restore the promotional content on the pages: "I was notified of the mass changes by a concerned Emirat who knows the subject and noticed a large sudden deletion."[16]Thenightaway (talk)16:11, 14 September 2025 (UTC)
I would agree, but I ran it through the AI detectors and came up with squat. Not sure what to make of that other than the detectors can be very hit and miss still.Meepmeepyeet (talk)18:40, 21 September 2025 (UTC)
To be fair that is confusing and we have historically had questions about how to treat parliamentary and judiciary bodies in traditional, hybrid, authoritarian, etc states but I believe that consensus has consistently been to treat top tier parliamentarians equally regardless of what role they play in actually exercising legal authority or power.Horse Eye's Back (talk)19:06, 21 September 2025 (UTC)
I'm not AI generated. @Thenightaway - The COI was declared before the creation of that page; specifically, I've met the individual and used to work for a government-owned company in a place where nearly all companies are government controlled or affiliated in some way. So, it was a very conservative interpretation of COI. The goal of my contributions has been to try to improve coverage using English-language content combined with Arabic content (prevalent locally) for UAE topics and figures, specifically women in politics. You are right to point out that the tone seems promotional; part of the reason for this is that overtly negative press pointing to an individual is culturally unacceptable (in most circumstances), and it is monitored centrally by a government media council. I also agree with the general point you make that the content could be improved.
The Emirati who called me was from the National Archives—several years back I was getting more Arabic and English source material (nothing related to this article). They expressed a concern about vandalism.
While I appreciate that is hopefully not the intent, I saw bulk deletion of specific content spanning >25 sources, spanning all major UAE news sources and other non-UAE ones. That removes ~55% of the article content in a single sweep with the edit summary “remove egregious puffery and poorly sourced content.” To blanket dismiss all UAE news sources (both arabic and English) as "government propaganda" and "poorly sourced" seems prejudicial and against policy - as per the talk page comment. An overly promotional tone is not a good reason to blanket remove content on notable events and topics where it's been sourced as well as possible - UK and US media do not cover UAE policy events or UAE international affairs as standalone matters.
To the concern about possible vandalism,. e.g. something like undisclosed paid COI - the deletions aren't source specific. The content removed covers political events and treaty signings, but you repeatedly dismiss them as "LinkedIn" and "CV" material. Ironically, the changes you made remove specific areas, which reduce the content page from actual sourced content based on events to more CV-like material on qualifications and roles. Again - this raises a perception of targeted changes for some reason - instead of rewriting or retaining some of this content.
Raising a COI noticeboard comment here rather than actually addressing the point in my comment does not help. I stand by my comment.Curiouskaon (talk)09:56, 25 September 2025 (UTC)
I posted about this apparent CoI inSeptember last year. Looking up this username in a search engine indicates a connexion between this editor and Alireza Mashayekhi. The editor did not respond in the discussion last year. They have continued to edit the article. I have asked again about CoI on their Talk page and had no response. The current version of the article is 78% written by this editor. Can we consider a block for the editor from this article? Thanks.Tacyarg (talk)19:05, 25 September 2025 (UTC)
Although the editor claims to not be receiving compensation for their edits, they continually add promotional content and remove maintenance templates without properly addressing the reason those templates exist. Attempts to make the article neutral have been reverted as "disfiguring". –Skywatcher68 (talk)18:23, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
wikipedia.org, not the Foundation.ChildrenWillListen (🐄 talk,🫘 contribs)18:15, 5 September 2025 (UTC)
