Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard

Welcome to Conflict of interest Noticeboard (COIN)
This Conflict of interest/Noticeboard (COIN) page is for determining whether a specific editor has a conflict of interest (COI) for a specific article and whether an edit by a COIN-declared COI editor does not meet a requirement of the Conflict of Interest guideline. A conflict of interest may occur when an editor has a close personal or business connections with article topics. An edit by a COIN-declared COI editor may not meet a requirement of the COI guideline when the edit advances outside interests more than it advances the aims of Wikipedia. Post here if you are concerned that an editor has a COI, and is using Wikipedia to promote their own interests at the expense of neutrality. For content disputes, try proposing changes at the article talk page first and otherwise follow the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution procedural policy. Sections older than 14 days archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.
Click here to purge this page
(For help, see Wikipedia:Purge)
You must notify any editor who is the subject of a discussion. You may use {{subst:coin-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

Additional notes:
  • This page should only be used when ordinary talk page discussion has been attempted and failed to resolve the issue, such as when an editor has repeatedly added problematic material over an extended period.
  • Be careful not to out other editors by posting personal information here. Wikipedia's policy against harassment takes precedence over the COI guideline. If private information is needed to resolve COI editing, and if the issue is serious enough to warrant it, editors can email paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org with the evidence, or email any functionary for advice. Functionaries and members of the Arbitration Committee will review private evidence and take any necessary action.
  • The COI guideline does not absolutely prohibit people with a connection to a subject from editing articles on that subject. Editors who have such a connection can still comply with the COI guideline by discussing proposed article changes first, or by making uncontroversial edits. COI allegations should not be used as a "trump card" in disputes over article content. However, paid editing without disclosure is prohibited. Consider using the template series {{Uw-paid1}} through {{Uw-paid4}}.
  • Your report or advice request regarding COI incidents should include diff links and focus on one or more items in the COI guideline. In response, COIN may determine whether a specific editor has a COI for a specific article. There are three possible outcomes to your COIN request:
1. COIN consensus determines that an editor has a COI for a specific article. In response, the relevant article talk pages may be tagged with {{Connected contributor}}, the article page may be tagged with {{COI}}, and/or the user may be warned via {}.
2. COIN consensus determines that an editor does not have a COI for a specific article. In response, editors should refrain from further accusing that editor of having a conflict of interest. Feel free to repost at COIN if additional COI evidence comes to light that was not previously addressed.
3. There is no COIN consensus. Here, Lowercase sigmabot III will automatically archive the thread when it is older than 14 days.
  • Once COIN declares that an editor has a COI for a specific article, COIN (or a variety of other noticeboards) may be used to determine whether an edit by a COIN-declared COI editor does not meet a requirement of the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest guideline.
To begin a new discussion, enter the name of the relevant article below:


Search the COI noticeboard archives
Help answer requested edits
Category:Requested edits is where COI editors have placed the {{Request edit}} template:

Sam Ayoub[edit]

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

Amitabh Shah[edit]

The editor has submitted a promotional biography of Amitabh Shah in article space and in draft space. The editor has also made edits to Yuva Unstoppable, an organization founded by Amitabh Shah. The editor has been asked twice by User:Sulfurboy whether they have a conflict of interest, and has not answered, but has continued to edit. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:58, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

They mentioned here that they volunteer for the same NGO. 2020satiya, we need a yes or no answer from you: have you been asked to edit Wikipedia as part of your volunteering? creffett (talk) 02:03, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello I am 2020satiya

Here are the answers to your questions 1. I made the page and then moved to the article and at the same time in another tab, I was editing and adding infobox in the page and didn't checked the realtime notification and submitted again by which the situation was when I was editing the article after publishing the article by the sulfurboy was moved to draft again and after that edited article was published to resulted to become 2 articles one draft and another duplicate published

2. I am in the technical department and handle social media and other similar things so I made this by myself no one asked me to do so. But yes I do have appropriate permissions to do this.

3. Some edits suggested by sulfurboy for reference links has been again revised and Robert McClenon commented on the duplicate page which was created by mistake.

4. I am new to all this please help me in wikipedia community i am ready to learn and follow all guidelines provided by you. Thanks for the support — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2020satiya (talkcontribs) 02:45, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Even with a sizable level of chopping, the Shah draft is still just bullet point CV/resumesque brags on the subject and provide nothing encyclopedic. My suggestion is that the user first needs to properly disclose their WP:COI as already suggested on my talk page. It may also be prudent that the user avoid editing subjects they have such a heavy COI with until they have a better understanding of our policies surrounding WP:TONE, WP:NPOV and WP:RS Sulfurboy (talk) 04:11, 22 May 2020 (UTC)


The article is now with only 20% of only important content left in it with appropriate references only. If there are any more suggestions please help me with that. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2020satiya (talkcontribs) 04:16, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

You've been repeatedly asked to properly disclose your COI now and have continued editing and ignoring these requests. Why? Sulfurboy (talk) 01:14, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
@Sulfurboy: I am seeing a paid user declaration on their user page now.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 13:41, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Max Group[edit]

Hello JzG, Bri, Creffett and ThatMontrealIP (apologies for this ping bomb, but covering all involved). I'm sorry if this isn't the right platform for this post, but just wanted to say that the Max discussion couldn't reach a conclusion before its archival. I had further worked on the articles to the best of my ability, using the most reliable sources available. Wanted to inform you all that I'm taking I have taken the liberty of moving the 5 articles into main space: Max Group, Max India, Antara Senior Living, Max Financial Services and Max Ventures and Industries. If it wasn't the right thing to do, please feel free to revert or take the necessary course of action.. Regards, TerentiusNew (talk) 08:04, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm new to this particular discussion, but I've certainly dealt with similar. The separate articles are clearly unjustified, because we normally cover all parts of such a group of companies together unless the article becomes unmanageably long or the activities are totally unrelated. These firms are all in the overlapping areas, and the information would fit in a single article--much of the existing articles seem to be crosslinks to each other. . Do you wish to merge them yourself, or shall I do it.? DGG ( talk ) 17:22, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
Agree, these should be merged to one article.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:29, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
Hi DGG, thank you so much for your offer of help! That makes good sense...But having saturated my brain with all things Max, I'm going to get a little technical and make ONE final suggestion, which you're free to ignore (as it might betray my inexperience in these matters). So, I really think out of Template:Max Group, only 4 things should be kept - Max Group and its 3 publicly-listed holding companies - as they're operating in completely different fields: Max India (healthcare, senior living); Max Financial Services (life insurance) and Max Ventures and Industries (real estate, packaging films, education and venture capital). All other articles in that template (which weren't created by me, except Antara) should be merged into their respective parent companies as you've suggested (Max Life Insurance under --> Max Financial; Healthcare, Bupa & Antara --> Max India). We should keep the Group and the holding companies as they're, in effect, separate businesses with their own board and CEOs, separate profits to report and different listings on stock exchanges. An appropriate analogy perhaps would be Alphabet with separate companies under it like Google etc. or the Canadian conglomerate Power Corporation of Canada which has listed companies like IGM Financial (asset mgmt.), Canada Life (life insurance) and others under it. After studying their structure while creating the articles, I do think the listed companies should be kept as they're the most prominent and functioning in different areas, while the rest of the articles, as they stand, include puffery, products directory, non-notable awards or ad campaigns info. If I have somewhat confused you, could I take a couple of days to execute what I'm proposing -- and in the process also clean up unencyclopedic stuff? As you have a lot more experience in this area (these were my first business-related edits), you can then take the final call...? Thanks again! TerentiusNew (talk) 05:46, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
the practical way to do this is to start with a single article, add material to the sections, and then when you are ready suggest a split. WP does not go entirely by logic in these things. DGG ( talk ) 06:09, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
Okay, sure, please feel free to merge them in whatever way you think is appropriate. Thanks TerentiusNew (talk) 08:08, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
I will, when I have a little time. DGG ( talk ) 18:10, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

getlatka.com refspam[edit]

IP editor (Rajasthan) refspammed all the articles above. Unsure if they have paid for services, possibly related to a single off-wiki covert advertising platform reported to WP:WPSPAM. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:17, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Blocked 31h for spam, and since COIBot says that multiple IP editors and logged-in users have added this domain, I'll blacklist it shortly. creffett (talk) 18:28, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Steven Fernandez[edit]

I'm assuming that Stevenfernandez00 is Steven Fernandez.

Stevenfernandez00 created the article and has used it to promote himself. The article needs a complete rewrite from policy, and the editor needs to respond to the coi concerns.

Stevenfernandez00 is in the process of creating an article about his film producer [1]. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 19:58, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

I'd appreciate a more in-depth look at whether the subject is notable - based on the existing refs we've got "they were swarmed by fans at a mall" (which could mean notable, but none of the sources have SIGCOV) and BLPCRIME (partially sourced to TMZ). creffett (talk) 20:03, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
That's my impression about the article topic as well.
My focus here is to get help with Stevenfernandez00. A block may be necessary if no one can get him to changing his editing behavior. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 20:13, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
I've stubbed the article in the meantime. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 21:12, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
He looks notable to me. The story seems to be he was a skateboard/youtube personality and had some coverage and fame doing that. Then he was arrested on some sex charges, for which there is a heap of coverage. Circa around 2016-2016. I added a couple of good sources. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 23:33, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

PTT Global Chemical[edit]

User:Predictiveteam had made non-promotional edits to PTT Global Chemical on 30 March and 1 April, but today inserted a huge amount of information, including some sections in a first-person, promotional tone, and also created an article about Kongkrapan Intarajang, its CEO. (These are the user's only contributions.) Should the recent additions be reverted? --Paul_012 (talk) 20:08, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Artadia[edit]

User has disclosed that Artadia was a paid editing gig. I am not seeing any disclosure for that anywhere. This started when their recent creation of Sheri L. Pasquarella struck me as promotional work. Off-wiki research confirmed there is a strong COI problem, so I inquired and got the above disclosure. The editor has been employed by them, according to the disclosure. The editor does appear to be an asset, but the way they are operating seems to have violated our WP:COI and WP:PAID policies and the TOS. I have not checked the many other articles they have made. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 22:57, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi! My apologies for misunderstanding about disclosures. If you can tell me the best way to go about it, I am happy to add them as appropriate. I think these pages are relevant and pertinent to those with interests in contemporary art and the contemporary art market. I am also happy to neutralize language as appropriate, I used a wide amount of citations from reputable sources and tried to keep it balanced. Please let me know how to best move forward. Thank you! (Drewzeiba (talk) 23:05, 27 May 2020 (UTC))

Also, to be clear it was not my intent to mislead or be surreptitious. I am relatively new to editing Wiki so I apologize for any unintentional ToS violations. (Drewzeiba (talk) 23:07, 27 May 2020 (UTC))

thanks. Please let us know which articles you worked on that were paid gigs. You've said Artadia was, but what about Carolyn Ramo, who works at Artadia? A list of any articles where you have been paid or were in a working relationship (not necessarily a paid one) with the person would be helpful. That way we can have neutral eyes look at them.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 23:09, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
Well, the user has verified that he or she is being paid, so let's let this person get on with whatever changes may be necessary and proper in the article. Then let's focus on the changes. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 23:13, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
Hey, BeenAroundAWhile, you have Been-Around-A-While and you know that COI editors are supposed to use the talk pages to request edits rather than directly edit articles they have a COI with. Artadia was a 2019 article creation. I'd like to hear about the Sheri L. Pasquarella article, which is the one that shows a strong COI off-wiki.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 23:18, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Carolyn Ramo I initially wrote back when I uploaded Artadia, but I updated it recently when there was press related to the COVID grants, so I guess those could be lumped together. Sheri L. Pasquarella I also have a working/employer relationship with so if for simplicity's sake we could say it is paid, sure. I am confident in their relevance and the thoroughness of my citations but am happy to add any disclosures or neutralize language/content as needed. I think most other edits I may have made were just to add links. (Drewzeiba (talk) 23:16, 27 May 2020 (UTC))

OK thanks, I am reading that as all three are paid editing. Please have a look at WP:PAID and place the proper disclosure on your user page.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 23:19, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks all for your patience. I think I did the proper thing on my page and the talk pages. (Drewzeiba (talk) 23:28, 27 May 2020 (UTC)) Let me know if we can remove the $$ alert and if I can assist any edits. Thanks again! (Drewzeiba (talk) 23:42, 27 May 2020 (UTC))

I checked Artadia and removed the PAID tag. As soon as someone else's neural eyes check the other articles, they'll remove the tags. The Pasquarella article is also new so I am not sure if it has been through the "new page patrol". Don't edit these pages directly in future: use the WP:REQUESTEDIT template on the talk page to make requests. Thanks. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:01, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
This can probably be closed. The editor has disclosed, Artadia looks OK, and the two other articles are deleted or on the road to deletion, so no content concerns.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 15:56, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Youth Defence[edit]

A person claiming to be a person named in the article as the organisation's chairperson states that he resigned and left the organisation. Various different accounts have been removing mention of this person from the article for several months, though it is referenced. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 13:34, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

The user is engaging on the article talk page, and the COI is noted there as well, so I think it's being handled fine at the moment. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 20:51, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Catalent[edit]

We have discussed this article at archive 143 and 144. It just keeps getting spammed up with rank churnalism. I did some pruning but the whole post 2010 history is suspicious. IPs listed all have edited this year. ☆ Bri (talk) 05:09, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

There's technical evidence that at least some of these IPs are proxying. I've reported to WP:WPOP, to see if they agree and/or find more. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:16, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Proxy check was negative on the 68.xx.xx.xx IPs ☆ Bri (talk) 20:38, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Bryant Family Vineyard[edit]

The Bryant Family Vineyard page has been edited by the estate of the Bryant Family, which is a clear Conflict of Interest. Definitely also an WP:SPA as well.

-- OldGalileo (talk) 21:42, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Masayoshi Yamaguchi[edit]

Masayoshi Yamaguchi (as an editor) appears to be interested only in editing the articles on Masayoshi Yamaguchi (a notable researcher) and Regucalcin (a topic of Yamaguchi's research). Repeated warnings about autobiography on the user talk page have led only to uncivil responses and the same behavior. Is there some other step we can take or is the only remaining resort a block? —David Eppstein (talk) 00:52, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Update: Yamaguchi has twice more edited the article on Yamaguchi after this report was made and he was notified of it. He has not responded here or elsewhere to the discussion. Would it be warranted to try indefinitely fully protecting the article rather than blocking? Indefinite because this has been going on for over ten years. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:25, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
I left them a talk page note describing the potential upside of cooperation.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 22:45, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
@David Eppstein: I'm considering this an long-term edit war. COI guidelines do not prohibit COI/Autobio editing. I see no comments by the autobio editor on their talk page.
Here's what you should do. Instead of WP:BITING them, tell them that they should be making COI edit request. And revert only when necessary. {{replyto|Can I Log In}}'s talk page! 22:46, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
You think that promotional autobiographical editing severe enough to have been the main justificaion for an AfD on the article is a non-problem, that WP:BITE applies to editors who have been doing the same pattern of editing for over ten years, that the complete non-response by Yamaguchi on his talk and here is evidence that we should try harder to engage with him rather than that he has no interest in ever cooperating, and that efforts to trim the self-promotion and cut back the autobiographical writing are both-sides-ist edit-warring? I know it would be a violation of WP:OUTING to demand a serious answer to this question, but: what planet do you live on? —David Eppstein (talk) 22:51, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
It is a valid concern; the user has edited the page for years and refuses to follow COI guidelines. WP:BITE applied to new editors, not long-term abusers of the neutrality of the wiki who refuse to follow the guidelines. This is precisely what COIN is here for.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 23:09, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
David Eppstein, if they're refusing to engage constructively and keep doing the same thing on the same couple articles, a pblock might be appropriate. creffett (talk) 23:16, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
A very good point, and one I hadn't considered. That would have much fewer side effects than either a block or protection. I'm not sure that a block on Regucalcin is warranted; at least, his most recent edits there was to add relevant non-COI information. But we could put one on the biography. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:48, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Big investigation on fr.wiki[edit]


we are going to have a ton of cleanup after several sockfarms found by ... well, different investigatory techniques by the fr.wiki admins. You can read more about it in the admins newsletter.

New upe firms listed on PAIDLIST [2]

Listed just one two a few cross-over users as proof of impact on en.wiki ☆ Bri (talk) 02:55, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

I blocked the following accounts (that is to say, everything except for the incidental accounts and those below Articles Groupe Saur et liés):
Extended content
Incidentally, W Baskerville (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) was the only one caught prior to this (by myself). MER-C 11:09, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Anybody with good info on this please contact me ASAP. Special:EmailUser/Smallbones. The Signpost publishes in about 24 hours and it's difficult to "stop the presses" because of my schedule. Smallbones(smalltalk) 14:40, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

TransCultural Exchange and Mary Sherman (artist)[edit]

Both articles were put on Wikipedia by a user that was banned for undisclosed paid editing. A person speaking on behalf of the organization admitted they paid someone to place them on Wikipedia but says they weren't aware undisclosed paid editing was disallowed and they're asking the unpaid template to be removed. See this discussion. As I see it, both articles still have a promotional layout and choice of contents selection that embellishes favorable things and a typical paid article layout. I think it would be beneficial to first see if these articles should even be on Wikipedia by evaluating notability and nominating them for AfD as needed. If these articles are actually notable, they would need to be fundamentally rewritten to be encyclopedic. Let's discuss how this should proceed. Graywalls (talk) 23:11, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

ICF International[edit]

Would others care to take a look at ICF International, where a few days ago I removed a substantial paid-editor rewrite of the page because I believe it to be a perfect example of what is meant by WP:COVERT advertising – stuff written by or for the company masquerading as neutral Wikipedia content? That edit has been reverted, but I'm not convinced that it should have been. That paid content was added by Mean as custard in August 2017, in good faith and in due process, and I'm not making or implying any criticism of that (or indeed any other) editor – I just don't believe that the right choice was made. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:21, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't remember why I originally added the content (it is not something I would normally do and I have no connection with the company involved). I fail to see why WP:COVERT applies in this case as contributors (paid or otherwise) with a conflict of interest have not tried to conceal their interest, and there is no suggestion that the content was promotional. . . Mean as custard (talk) 12:32, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
@Justlettersandnumbers: This response is wholly inadequate. Our problem is not only your revert, it's your behavior. Why have you taken this to WP:COI/N instead of just WP:CONCEDEing and discussing it further on the talk page? Do you really think you've acted appropriately? Let me summarize what's happened here:
  1. On 20 July 2017, WWB Too opens a WP:ER on Talk:ICF International under § Proposed expansion of this article.
  2. Mean as custard implements the WP:ER around 9 August.
  3. You reply 24 August, questioning the edit.
  4. Both Mean as custard and WWB Too follow up with you, you don't get back to them. Years pass.
  5. Further implemented WP:ERs are requested by ICF Will beginning January 2020 and made by Spintendo and Can I Log In.
  6. On 26 May, without any discussion with past ER implementers, nor any talk page discussion, nor any discussion with the WP:PAID editor, you revert back to a version before 24 August 2017, with this overly dramatic, editorialized WP:ES (Special:Diff/959029665):

    Reverted to revision 790289973 by 67.197.0.86: Revert to last clean non-WP:COI version, however brief; enough of this messing about, we're not here to dance to the tune of WP:PAID editors – please see WP:COVERT for why their content cannot be accepted.

  7. A little later on 26 May, Can I Log In asks on your talk page why you reverted. You just repeat WP:COVERT (indeed, this has been all you've done every time anyone tries to discuss this with you, if you answer at all) and tell them to got to the talk page.
  8. On 29 May, ICF Will asks you, in good faith, why you reverted. You ignore them.
  9. ICF Will had opened an ER before your revert. That remained open. I saw the page in the ER queue and came across your revert. I quickly, easily determined that your behavior was inappropriate and unbecoming of a sysop and reverted you.
So, Justlettersandnumbers, care to explain the following?
  1. Why was this reversion so urgent that it should take place without discussion, even though there was already a talk page section from August 2017 you could have followed up on?
  2. Why have you failed to WP:AGF on the part of any of the ER implementers?
  3. Why have you decided to defend your WP:BITE of ICF Will and others? Simply because they're paid editors? I'm sorry, where does WP:BITE say it's okay to bite new paid editors, but other kinds of new users should be shown more levity?
@Justlettersandnumbers: Stop repeating WP:COVERT over and over again and get to the actual issues. If you want to discuss this at WP:COI/N, let's really discuss it at COI/N, especially your behavior as an administrator. (pinging other interested parties: WWB Too ICF Will Spintendo Can I Log In Mean as custard) Psiĥedelisto (talkcontribs) please always ping! 13:47, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Following the site's conflict of interest standards, I will request edits on discussion pages, says ICF Will 4 times on the talk page since Jan 3. That means the COI guidelines, which oh guess what? It includes WP:COVERT. So when you actually WP:AGF, you know they don't intend to WP:COVERT. If there is actual evidence to confirm so, ok fine. Right now it's not fine, that was inappropriate, and your current behaivior is inappropriate. justlettersandnumber I'd rather have you explain yourself, answering the 3 questions above and end this dispute now rather than resisting arrest and taking this closer to ArbCom, and you never want to end up as the subject there. Not to mention, 61 days in 2020, they already desysopped 3 users, about 3 weeks in between (or 2 not couting the inactive, about a month in between). {{replyto|Can I Log In}}'s talk page! 16:58, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
I agree with this sentiment and would go one step further than Can I Log In: accusing ICF Will of WP:COVERT is itself a bad faith personal attack in my opinion. There's nothing covert about their behavior, they're coming right out and telling us, and the world, that they're being paid by ICF to make edit requests. Again, Justlettersandnumbers, I don't understand why you can't just apologize for the obvious WP:BITE so we can all move on to actually discuss the content of the article, either here or on its talk page, as you should have done in August 2017. If this wasn't urgent enough for you to reply then, why is it now? Psiĥedelisto (talkcontribs) please always ping! 17:45, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Iankush raj[edit]

A Google search reveals Iankush raj has a conflict of interest and is only here to promote these companies, but they are not ready to accept despite there is off-wiki evidence. GSS💬 07:49, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

GSS, if there's off-wiki evidence, please email it to paid-en-wp(at)wikipedia.org. I'll add that I did the Google search you suggested but all I found was a similar (but not identical) name related to those companies, and I don't think they are the same person. creffett (talk) 21:07, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

IP User from india removing any negative references / content regarding apple products[edit]

IP 2402:3a80:922:ce6b:f43f:a533:7f4d:23f2 also known as

  • 2402:3A80:93D:8F69:F933:45C9:2FB6:58D7 and
  • 2402:3a80:9bd:b174:651d:3c93:ec5c:6bf7

is massively and continously trying to remove any non positive content regarding apple devices. Please block. Disclosure: I am right to repair activist and entrepreneur, please consult my user page for any additional information. Fthobe (talk) 15:30, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Possible edit wars between Bulgarians and Macedonians[edit]

Some days ago I noticed someone complaining about an edit war on an article about his/her supposed grandfather. (yea, raised my eybrow). But this appears to be part of a bigger problem that goes beyond my abilities: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PxS5tZc-yf4 And to be honest, I don't care about hundred year old stuff that is related to national pride. But if this is a problem spanning serval articles and languages, this has to be fixed.--Tobias ToMar Maier (talk) 20:33, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Draft:JK News Magazine[edit]

The user is engaged in creation of promotional content. In Draft:JK News Magazine it is clearly mentioned as Founder Amit Kumar. Has been already been informed about WP:COI and WP:PROMOTION both at draft and talk-page, but instead taking an action has removed the COI tags. ~ Amkgp 06:40, 3 June 2020 (UTC)