Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard

Welcome to Conflict of interest Noticeboard (COIN)
Sections older than 14 days archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.
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.
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 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 {{subst:uw-coi|Article}}.
2. COIN consensus determines that an editor does not have a COI for a specific article. In response, editors should refrain from further accusing that editor of having a conflict of interest. Feel free to repost at COIN if additional COI evidence comes to light that was not previously addressed.
3. There is no COIN consensus. Here, Lowercase sigmabot III will automatically archive the thread when it is older than 14 days.
  • Once COIN declares that an editor has a COI for a specific article, COIN (or a variety of other noticeboards) may be used to determine whether an edit by a COIN-declared COI editor 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:Wikipedia requested edits is where COI editors have placed the {{Request edit}} template:

Thomas Modly - PR firm is making paid edits

The editor T768977 has been adding puffery to the Thomas Modly page. They say they work for "T.Bela Strategies" as a paid contributor. The editor does not appear to follow COI, as they are making bold edits to articles rather than suggesting them on talk pages. R5752332 said in June 2021 that they were not paid, yet did basically the same puffery edits to the page. Also, maybe I'm just imagining things but I do recall seeing accounts with T followed by a string of numbers on other pages making puffery-style edits – does that ring a bell to any of the experienced editors familiar with COI cases? Could it be a mass WP operation by "T.Bela Strategies"? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:25, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

I found this account from March 2021: T1512 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log). Unsure if related to the firm. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:29, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
I definitively remember seeing these [letter][string of numbers] accounts around doing sketchy stuff. JBchrch talk 15:39, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
Account T856625 was created by B856625 (see logs). R5752332 is obviously the same user or group. This does not look good. MarioGom (talk) 22:17, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
See also: T155R (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), J5421 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), T12525 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), T1259 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), T1170 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:06, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

A new editor popped up on the Modly page, also claiming to work for the PR firm: Coffeebar20. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:18, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Coffeebar20 is now proposing to add the exact same language about Modly's early life to the article that the user R5752332 earlier tried to add to the article directly. When I asked R5752332 if they were a paid editor, they directly denied it. I was very skeptical but decided to AGF, but I still don't appreciate (apparently) being lied to directly. However, I'm glad that the user(s) appear to now be using the talk page to propose edits, at least (though there are still problems with the edits they're proposing). Aoi (青い) (talk) 21:42, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
I've {{uw-agf-sock}}'d Coffee and R575. If these shenanigans continue, at least they will have been warned. JBchrch talk 21:58, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
Thank you, JBchrch. I didn't even realize that template existed. I really need to mess around with Twinkle more. Aoi (青い) (talk) 22:03, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
Just noting that the editor just implemented one of their own edit requests. I left a note on their talk page asking them to let an uninvolved editor review their edit requests. I don't think any action is required at the moment but given this firm's prior actions and the nature of some of the more recent edit requests by this editor on the talk page, some additional eyes on the article may be warranted. Aoi (青い) (talk) 20:14, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
On second look, a brand new editor, Beachsand27, (on their very first edit), gave the go-ahead for the editor to make the edit on their own. Aoi (青い) (talk) 20:19, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Nice one. JBchrch talk 20:43, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Filed at SPI: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/R5752332. Way too much for AGF. MarioGom (talk) 09:32, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

User: Petersmillard

This user is almost exclusively editing circumcision related pages. He's has a history of removing content critical of circumcision and adding text supportive of the practice. For example: , , . He's written articles for commercial circumcision devices that were positively glowing . I don't want to post what I've found about him outside of Wikipedia, per WP:OUTING, but other public information exists to support my claim that he's materially benefiting from circumcision advocacy, despite the COI statement on his talk page.

Given that he nearly only edits to write NPOV positive statements on circumcision, that should be a enough of a red flag. Given his situation, he's better making comments on the talk pages of articles or editing articles outside of circumcision.Stix1776 (talk) 10:22, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

I am a PhD epidemiologist and I have published in many scientific areas over the past 30 years. However, circumcision has been my main research focus for the past 10 years. I am an expert in this field. If Wikipedia excludes experts in their field, it will cease to be a well-informed platform. It would be hard to write about nuclear physics if one were not a nuclear physicist, but somehow everything thinks they are an expert in medical matters. I have never received any funding for my work, did not/do not serve as an employee or consultant, and have no financial interest in any marketed products or products in development. I have no competing interests, defined as anything that interferes with, or could reasonably be perceived as interfering with, the full and objective presentation, peer review, editorial decision-making, or publication of research or non-research articles. No competing interests, financial or non-financial, professional, or personal, exist. No competing interests exist in relationship to an organization or another person. (talk) 10:34, 16 July 2021 (UTC).
Ooops. I wasn't logged in. Petersmillard (talk) 10:35, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
@Petersmillard: thanks for your reply. We love experts and they are welcome to contribute within guidelines. The issue here seems to be that you have removed entirely removed text that is critical of the value of circumcision, and replaced it with positive views. That makes it look like you are promoting a certain point of view, rather than being neutral. Could you address that? This diff is a good example of what I mean. --- Possibly 05:27, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
That's a good edit: replacing a weasel-worded statement sourced to a low-quality, decade-old journal with something recent from the WHO is exactly the kind of edit Wikipedia likes (from experts or not!) Alexbrn (talk) 07:10, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
Calling the Journal of Public Health in Africa "low-quality" seems a bit racist. Anyhow, I don't know how you call this "weasel-worded", as it's the literal intent of the article's authors. Honestly I'd love to find the diff that takes a neutral and nuanced tone with the sources, but I'm not seeing it.Stix1776 (talk) 13:50, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
And calling an evaluation of a low-quality journal "racist", is fucking stupid. (Hint: it's not MEDLINE-indexed, a red flag). Editorial verbiage like "There are some who question ..." is weasel wording, plain and simple. Alexbrn (talk) 13:56, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Comment, I need an editor with privileges to read the public information about this editor, which I'm unable to post here. In the meantime, looking at the user's history makes clear that, at minimum, he's engaging in WP:ADVOCACY. Stix1776 (talk) 11:01, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

I also am concerned about their COI. Especially when they cited themself in the Unicirc article. Being a single purpose account is definitely a red flag. Prcc27 (talk) 05:13, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
@Prcc27: yes they are contributing on a single subject matter (circumcision), but have edited 14 different articles related to the subject. That's a positive. The many edits to Unicirc look a little promotional though. --- Possibly 05:33, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
Another concerning incident that occured is when they removed my comments and another user's comments on the Circumcision and HIV talk page. This act was very disruptive, and sadly lead to a user unwatching the page. Prcc27 (talk) 05:42, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Comment : is no one going to check this outside information that I can't post due to WP:OUTING? I'm in no rush, but I hope it's not ignored. Stix1776 (talk) 05:06, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Is there going to be any kind of closure with this discussion? It would be nice to have some kind of resolution, so that we can move on from this issue. Prcc27 (talk) 03:53, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Big UPE sockfarm

Blocked socks

List of sock accounts

Suspect articles

A UPE farm containing about 60 accounts was just blocked at SPI today. For the full list of accounts and behavioural details, see the SPI link above. The articles they've edited could use review for neutrality, notability, etc. One of the accounts (which is now stale) was previously reported here for paid editing on Groundfloor (company). Thanks, Spicy (talk) 22:05, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

I added the users to the above list. I'm not going to notify them of this discussion, seeing as they are all blocked socks and cannot reply. --- Possibly 22:20, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
Batch number two has arrived, looks like they don't like the tags. Blablubbs (talk) 14:07, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

San Joaquin Valley College‎

The editor's username clearly indicates that he or she is employed by these colleges. He or she initially deleted the WP:PAID warning I left in User Talk and indicated that he or she was retiring. But he or she has continued to edit his or her employer's articles with no discussion in Talk, a response to the warning, or any meaningful edit summaries. ElKevbo (talk) 02:47, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

DtEmber has also recently edited San Joaquin Valley College. ElKevbo (talk) 02:49, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
That article has a long history of COI/undisclosed paid editor involvement. I've listed as many accounts as I can be reasonably certain of on the article talk page. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 13:27, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Prix Versailles

Idoumou33, MARdF and Pantell only edit Prix Versailles and related pages (purple economy "was invented by Jérôme Gouadain, who later put it into theory via the association Diversum and then in the Prix Versailles"). They also edit other Wikipedia projects with the same focus, which suggests conflict of interest and possible paid editing. I believe Prix Versailles is notable, but am unsure about Cultural footprint, Purple economy and the International Appeal of 7 June 2020. I have added COI notices to the user pages, but as they only edit periodically I do not expect an immediate response. TSventon (talk) 13:17, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree: this is quite obviously a walled garden of promotional pages designed to inflate the Prix Versailles. I trimmed about twenty uses of from the main page, and tagged the others for UPE. The main page contained so much primary-sourced detail that I would be extremely surprised if the editors behind it did not have a COI. I have half a mind to AFD it all, as it is such an obvious promotional oeuvre. However I am not sure an AfD would succeed, as they have generated some coverage over the years. Anyway, The COI promotion is very clear. --- Possibly 06:07, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
Given the extremely obvious walled garden and the long-term promotion, I redirected all the "Prix Versailles 20**" pages to Prix Versailles. It's difficult to find any RS sourcing about the prize itself as most mentions talk about the winners. The main page with mention of some winners seems appropriate; the "Prix Versailles 20**" pages listed 50 or more "winners" per page and were on the verge of using WP as a web host. They can put that stuff on their web site. --- Possibly 06:26, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
Thanks Possibly, I have nominated four related categories for deletion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 July 21. Do you know if there are similar noticeboards in other wikipedias? These editors have all edited related articles in fr Wikipedia. TSventon (talk) 10:39, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
Good afternoon. I am an occasional contributor. In my research, I particularly study the links between culture and sustainable development, put forward by UNESCO. The Prix Versailles is an extension of UNESCO's advocacy. I do not understand the deletion of the Prix Versailles 2020 etc. pages. We can always add sources, but the latter for example contains about twenty external sources on the awarding of the prize. --MARdF (talk) 12:13, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
MARdF, thank you for your response. Please could you confirm whether you have a connection to Prix Versailles or the other subjects you have edited which could cause a conflict of interest and whether you have been paid to edit? "Prix Versailles 20**" articles have been redirected rather than deleted: Help:Redirect#How it appears to the user explains how to access previous versions.
Possibly do you think it would make sense to unredirect the "Prix Versailles 20**" articles for now and start a discussion on the Prix Versailles talk page on what level of detail is appropriate? TSventon (talk) 13:46, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
Thanks TSventon for the explanation. The interest is only intellectual (no remuneration of course). My goal is to improve the pages when I can. I try to be as neutral and encyclopedic as possible. MARdF (talk) 15:10, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
@MARdF and Idoumou33: would you mind answering the question-- are either of you connected to the Prix Versailles in some way, i.e. do you know them, work with them or are friends with someone at the organization? If you have no connection it is easy enough to say "I have no connection at all to the Prix Versailles". At the moment the edit history for MARdF and Idoumou33 shows a long-standing devotion to updating PV articles, and it matches with COI editing patterns that we see here often. --- Possibly 17:23, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
Hello, as I told to TSventon, I am passionate about the Prix Versailles because it is a great and unique adventure in the world of architecture, but there is no conflict of interest. Everything I write down is sourced. One can easily find a large number of sources. To Possibly, I have no connection at all to the Prix Versailles or the people who work there. Idoumou33 (talk) 18:51, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
Thanks. It is a little hard to believe that the three accounts are not connected and engaged in promotion of the Prix Versailles. For example, here is Idoumu33, MARDF AND Pantell all working together on the Prix Versailles page on the French Wikipedia. And again they work together here, here and here. For three indpendent wiki accounts to come together across different language wikis on the same subject, it obviously requires coordination. @Idoumou33:, could you explain that? --- Possibly 19:19, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
Thanks Possibly, yes we know us eachother, from the same association, and have talked about this. I can reply also for MARdF and Pantell: we have no connection to the Prix Versailles. We have been following the activities of the Prix Versailles for several years. As far as we can see, this is a non-partisan and multilateral approach. Our contributions are based on public sources. Idoumou33 (talk) 19:40, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
@Idoumou33: can you say more about your "association" and why you have three people working together to promote the Prix Versailles? We are not talking about the sources here, but rather conflict of interest and what we call sockpuppeting/meatpuppeting. It is extremely rare that a group of three editors from the same organization would come together to edit a single subject, without that being problematic. The accounts appear to be separate individuals, but you are now saying that you all work for the same organization. It is confusing, and I see no declarations on your user page(s). --- Possibly 19:47, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
Also, to quote from WP:MEATPUPPETRY, "*A 2005 Arbitration Committee decision established: "For the purpose of dispute resolution when there is uncertainty whether a party is one user with sockpuppets or several users with similar editing habits they may be treated as one user with sockpuppets." --- Possibly 19:50, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
We belong to the same association but we do not work together. We are not responsible for promoting anything. In addition, my contributions to Wikipedia are occasional. At my level, I have never considered Wikipedia as "a job". It is rather a pleasure. I didn't know that I had to declare these links, so I did it on my page. For the rest I'm not an expert. Idoumou33 (talk) 21:30, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
@Idoumou33: I think it's in your best interest to be more transparent about the vague organization that employs three editors who are editing this subject. That could mean a lot of things. It might be the Versailles chamber of commerce. It might be a communications company doing PR work pro bono. Neither of those are desirable without proper disclosure. In short, you have not given us enough information to be sure there is no COI. On the contrary, you're three people pushing the same topic across multiple wikis, and all working (presumably) for the same organization. If we have to assume something, it's that you're collectively engaged in using Wikipedia as a promotional tool. --- Possibly 21:57, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
@Possibly: No, when I say association, it's like coliving ("foyer"), nothing professional. We have no connection either with the municipality of Versailles or similar institutions. As volunteers, our objective is not to promote, except that the Prix Versailles is probably the most important programme involving UNESCO which highlights the architecture of everyday life and the link between culture and sustainability. I think this is very relevant for the Wikipedian community, Wikipedia being undoubtedly today the best demonstration of taking into account the cultural dimension as an issue of sustainability. We wanted to contribute on these subjects because they clearly have, in our eyes, an encyclopedic scope, in view of the notoriety, the international spectrum and the values of diversity which are put forward. Idoumou33 (talk) 08:15, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
Hi all. I'm from fr-wp and I'v been pinged by @Blablubbs: on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MARdF. I would like to add that on fr-wp, user talk pages are designed the exact same way: fr:Utilisateur:Pantell, fr:Utilisateur:Idoumou33, fr:Utilisateur:MARdF, which seems odd to me for three seperate persons. I also found a fourth account fr:special:contributions/Icheus, very likely to be linked to the three others (edited fr:Économie mauve and created fr:Empreinte culturelle along with the three other accounts + same userpage design).
Furthemore, in 2010, MARdF created fr:Association diversum, which has been deleted. [Diversum association is the creator of the Prix Versailles... One of the users said above "yes we know us eachother, from the same association", and then "No, when I say association, it's like coliving ("foyer"), nothing professional." I have a hard time to assume good faith here and will submit a separate sockpupett investigation on fr-wp.
Regards, Jules* (talk) 12:11, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
Jules* thank you for your investigation. You could also look at the account fr:special:contributions/Cervantes04, which has been editing about topics related to PV on es and pt Wikipedias since 2018. TSventon (talk) 12:50, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

French checkuser found the French wiki accounts MARdF, Pantell, Idoumou33 and Cervantes04 to be the same, and blocked them all. Thanks Jules* for helping us out! --- Possibly 18:09, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

MARdF, Pantell, Idoumou33 have also been blocked here on en-wiki after SPI/checkuser. --- Possibly 19:34, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
I have now submitted a checkuser request at meta:Steward requests/Checkuser/2021-07#[email protected], es, fr, hu, id, it, pt, ro, zh and Wikidata [link updated 27 July 2021]. TSventon (talk) 19:43, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Update: in addition to MARdF, Idoumou33, and Pantell (the en-wiki and fr-wiki accounts), stewards also confirmed that Gaudiem, Mihály64, Cervantes04, FloricaMihalba, Satynath, Aspic80, and AigeusMare are the same account. Guadiem et al have no contribs on en-wiki. --- Possibly 19:48, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello, I am using Google Translate to speak to you. What has been said before is true. We are a group of friends who reside or have resided in the same household. We contribute little and we focus on the PV. Some have followed it from the start and even before, since the PV fits into a broader issue of promoting cultural diversity and its link with sustainable development. We intervened in a number of languages depending on our nationalities and our respective skills. But in any case we are not remunerated. This is a process of general interest. Sorry this has caused confusion. We were not familiar with the operating rules and we almost limited ourselves to the content. We regret it. We see PV as a new form of the Olympics, hence the enthusiasm. Of course, we let you judge Cervantes04 (talk) 06:54, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

I wonder why this account is not blocked yet. Cervantes04 was confirmed by stewards as being the same as the other blocked accounts. Cervantes04 is blocked on French Wikipedia. The story about ten different friends living in the same house and all being Wikipedia editors is amusing. --- Possibly 07:30, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
Could be a Commune, a reincarnation of the Paris Commune devoted to Prix Versailles. However even if true, this would still be considered a WP:SHAREd account (a " single user for Wikipedia's purposes") as "they edit with the same objectives". Constructively, a global lock should be requested at meta (they were CU confirmed there, but the accounts weren't globally locked, yet).--Eostrix  (🦉 hoot hoot🦉) 07:45, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
@Eostrix: A global lock was requested at meta. --- Possibly 08:25, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Comment - I was pinged on the Paulina Morán talkpage, an article I worked on improving when it was up for deletion. At the time, there seemed to be enough press on her to pass GNG, but I now realize the source-articles may have been carefully placed PR by the Prix Versailles ring. The "prize" had me fooled, as I assumed there was in fact a relationship with UNESCO, but it seems that the awards are just "presented" at a UNESCO facility. If Paulina Moran is part of a group-deletion of the COI/UPE-sock-walled gardener's articles, I do not object to it being deleted. In fact they should all go. BTW, I don't buy the "group of friends" story, it seems like I've heard that before. Netherzone (talk) 17:36, 28 July 2021 (UTC)



I am informing other Wikipedia of this investigation and adding this section for any questions and comments. TSventon (talk) 14:11, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

For de-WP, a SPA was used . I can't see any notability of this "prize" which was obviously inflated as a purely promotional tool. There's no reception or mentioning of this "prize" in well known or influential architectural magazines, only reprodued PR in some magazines.--Chianti (talk) 15:00, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
Chianti I am informing the other Wikipedias so they can deal with non notable and promotional material. A related de article is de:Lila Wirtschaft. The pattern across 16 Wikipedias was the use of the 15 SPAs listed in the meta investigation plus one more, Icheus. TSventon (talk) 15:48, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
Update: de:Prix Versailles and de:Lila Wirtschaft nominated for deletion today. TSventon (talk) 22:00, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Please post further comments and questions at meta:Talk:Wikiproject:Antispam#Following up Prix Versailles. TSventon (talk) 13:19, 31 July 2021 (UTC)


After being made aware of WP:COI and WP:PAID, Security in mind has posted a COI disclosure on their user page. So far, so good. However, they have also continued editing about their employer's products, and recently made a variation of the 'it's strongly discouraged not prohibited' argument that is so familiar to this noticeboard. Since then, new user MrSaul76 has appeared to revert back to Security in mind's preferred versions. More eyes and opinions would be very welcome. MrOllie (talk) 19:09, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

@MrOllie: has repeatedly removed relevant details from the the pages listed above. This is an active product line to which the removed information is extremely relevant. His edits are intended to deface the product or its reputation for malicious intent. His modifications obviously are not intended and do not to make the pages more informative or useful to users. As a avid Wikipedia user and a cryptographer by trade, i request he be blocked from making any more edits on the pages listed above as he insists on removing vital information that i and others use frequently in our jobs.MrSaul76 (talk) 20:00, 23 July 2021 (UTC) contribs)
@MrSaul76:, are you the same account as Security in mind? --- Possibly 19:42, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
@Possibly:, no i am not. MrSaul76 (talk) 20:00, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
Rules are rules. strongly discouraged is not prohibited. How can you have valuable and exact content on WP without subject matter experts from the companies that work on those products? Isn't it normal to want to improve WP content? As long as the info posted is factual and not biased, why would employees not write about products they know more about? More than you do? Cryptography is a cool topic. People who know about it are passionate about it. All I can say to MrSaul76 is a big thank you for standing with me and ensuring that the info on WP remains relevant. What would be WP without paid contributors (as you say so, even though I'm not paid to waste hours editing WP) and subject matter experts which, by WP rules, are branded with a COI un-removable tattoo? @MrOllie: please leave my edits alone. The day you see me writing something that is biased then you can call a shenanigan on me again... - Security in mind (talk) 20:18, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
A conflict of interest is not a bad thing; we all have many conflicts of interest. But they're incredibly difficult to manage if the person with the conflict insists of close contact and involvement with the subject(s) with which he or she has the conflict. Sometimes it's malicious (and not really a conflict of interest but an outright campaign of dishonesty) but most often it's innocent. Regardless, it's still a significant problem and one that can - and should - be easily avoided simply by not substantively engaging with that subject(s).
We manage just fine, incidentally, without employees editing their employers' articles. Please don't do that. You're welcome to make requests and suggestions in the relevant Talk pages but editing those articles directly is a problem. ElKevbo (talk) 21:22, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Rham Records

I am not sure if this is a WP:COI, wp:OWN, wp:EW, or something else. Deepfriedokra (talk · contribs) asked/suggested that I take this here. I had left a long message on Deepfriedokra's talk page with more info here: (user talk:Deepfriedokra#Strange happenings at Rham Records).

There has been an apparent long drawn-out wp:edit war between Barryls69, Alaurance, and the IPs with Vivibelle. I undid some edits with IPv6 editors as "unsourced". As the IPs kept reverting/restoring unsourced content, I made a PP request and a range block was added to the IP RFPP: Rham Records. Shortly afterwards, Barryls69 reverted and restored the same unsourced information w/o an ES. I undid Barryls69's edit as unsourced and templated Barryls69. Barryls69 reverted my revert w/o an ES. That is where the article stands at this time.

  • Most of the edits were made by the IPv6, Vivibelle, and Barryls69. I left a welcome on Vivibelle and suggested he not exceed 3RR. Vivibelle has not edited since that I can see.
  • For some reason, Barryls69 has their signature name piped: visible in this diff: RFPP - Rham! (page was moved by its creator Barryls69, to Rham Records). Probably just experimenting as user doesn't appear to have signed their name elsewhere.
  • FYI: A Guy Called Gerald is an artist and Voodoo Ray is a single. Both seem to show up a lot.

Adakiko (talk) 11:21, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

  • Rham! Records from Merseyside ceased operations in 1992. In 2019, Barryls69 incorporated a new company called Rham Records Limited and has been passing it off as the original Rham! Records in order to illegally exploit recordings by A Guy Called Gerald - this is why he keeps removing the text 'defunct 1992', and the '!' from Rham!
I am A Guy Called Gerald's business manager. Legal action has been commenced against Barryls69 and his new company in respect of his unauthorised exploitation of A Guy Called Gerald recordings. He has been warned by A Guy Called Gerald's lawyers to cease and desist from altering information in the public domain.Vivibelle (talk) 12:28, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
@Vivibelle: it's not advisable to mention legal action on Wikipedia, as you can end up blocked per WP:NLT. I'm not sure if what you say meets the copyright exception of NLT, but saying that you are involved in some kind of legal action regarding their editing on WIkipedia is probably going to get you blocked. --- Possibly 19:54, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Rham! Was recently moved to Rham Records Diff. Given the above, this would appear to be an wp:article hijack Adakiko (talk) 19:46, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Given Vivibelle's comment above, I added a COI notice to Vivibelle and Barryls69's talk pages just now. Adakiko (talk) 19:52, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
  • I noticed that Barryls69 reverted an edit by Vivibelle diff here then ten minutes later retored Vivibelle's edit diff here Adakiko (talk) 20:09, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
Article fully protected for a while, a wholly unacceptable level of edit-warring. Barryls69, Adakiko, Alaurance, Vivibelle, please be warned: any more edit-warring, whether with IPs or with each other, may lead to a block, regardless of whether or not the WP:3RR bright line is breached. Please use the talk-page of the article to discuss your differences. Thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:18, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Is this record label notable enough to have its wiki article? It's a company, so the standard is somewhat high (WP:SIRS). From what I could find, the notability of Rham is not distinct from the notability of A Guy Called Gerard: references to Rham can only be found in connection with this artist and his works. There are multiple recent sources (from May 2021 onwards) covering the dispute between A Guy Called Gerard and Rham but this type of coverage does not meet the criteria of WP:SIRS and demonstrates, once again, that its notability is exclusively tied to A Guy Called Gerard. I've also looked through the various versions of the article and it was never sourced in a way that would demonstrate its notability. JBchrch talk 20:52, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Anna Zayachkivska

The user has been making edits on the article about herself since December 2017. She was warned by User:GRuban in December 2020. Nevertheless, she continues to make edits on the article and deletes referenced content which she deems inappropriate. I think we should take action against this user.V. E. (talk) 21:52, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Their edits look OK to me. They are very infrequent, and are mostly to correct URLS for he websites, and in one case to correct her name. The edit that removed sourced content removed information about a marriage, which I think most editors are willing to remove on request per WP:BLP. They should not be using two accounts, but the usual explanation for an infrequent editor like this is that they lost the password to one account. --- Possibly 22:11, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
@Possibly: Do we have to delete properly sourced information if it concerns BLP? Besides she added a link of her website, where she sells paintings, to the references section. She claimed that she is a painter but when I searched on Google News "anna zayachkivska" "painter" and "anna zayachkivska" "painting", I could find no sources about it. I am not sure whether her occupation as a "painter" is mentioned by reliable, secondary sources.--V. E. (talk) 22:30, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
Did you ask her about this? That is usually the first route. The relevant policy for removing material that couple be considered as victimizing is WP:BLP. I'm not sure if the marriage is relevant to her notability as a beauty queen; some would say it is gossip or trivia and remove it at the request of the subject. Others might not. Figuring out why she is editing the page is a good question to ask her and helps to resolve disputes, and to educate her on how Wikipedia works. I did take out the commercial-looking link that she had added. I don't speak Russian or whatever language the sources are in, so I can't help much on the content. Perhaps someone else can.--- Possibly 23:23, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
She is not an actor or an artist. The article was very poorly written. scope_creepTalk 08:33, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Possible conflict of interest editing by editor Jiblo94

(non-admin closure) Blocked indefinitely. JBchrch talk 19:19, 27 July 2021 (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.

The editor Jiblo94 has been an editor here for three years and have (as of now 18 edits) before creating the aforementioned article which I have moved to Draftspace they have been inactive since 2019. So today I stumbled on the aforementioned article and saw it had been flagged with the “BLP sources” by John B123 and rightfully so, I consider Nigerian sources my forte and can do a whole source analysis of the sources and it would turn back almost 0 reliable sources, forgive the digression, however the editor Jiblo94 comes back, (Since 2019) let me say again that they have only 18 edits in the 3 years they have been here, which is suspicious, and today out of the blues they created the aforementioned promotional on a non notable musician. Celestina007 (talk) 01:04, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Warned for COI. JBchrch talk 20:51, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Article was speedy deleted as a WP:G11. JBchrch talk 17:49, 27 July 2021 (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.

Aina Dumlao

I noticed that the author of the article had uploaded and claimed ownership of the subject's photo (with seemingly valid exif data), while in one of the sources they have provided, the same photo is attributed to the subject. The photo was in the infobox the author included, and removed after I had raised the possibility of COI on the editor's talk page. The editor claims that they are not the subject in the talk page, but did not confirm or deny whether they are connected to the subject. The editor has repeated removed {{COI}} template on the article. Almost all edits by the editor are marked as minor. To me, the actions thus far seem to indicate that the editor has some form of COI to the subject. – robertsky (talk) 07:32, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Left a comment. scope_creepTalk 10:16, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
Sock incident, all finished. scope_creepTalk 19:43, 27 July 2021 (UTC)


RossArctic (talk · contribs) Wondering if we have a conflict of interest here?: (Redacted)--MollyPollyRolly (talk) 19:23, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

@MollyPollyRolly: Are you trying to WP:OUT the user? Please don't do that. --- Possibly 19:45, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
17 edits that look like a decent copyedit. The World Economic forum, well its massive. scope_creepTalk 19:57, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
The content of these edits is mostly critical and linking to sources whenever third party content has been paraphrased. Some edits refer to sentences that were stylistically odd. Could you otherwise kindly explain the grounds for your request? --RossArctic (talk) 06:58, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Sorry, I assumed the worst at the time. I was redirected here from Usernames that need administrative attention. I thought the name was promoting a company, they found nothing, so I came here with that link. As long as the editor do everything right (as he explained), I have nothing to complain about.--MollyPollyRolly (talk) 18:10, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Prime Healthcare Services

User:PrimeHealthEditor altered the article by rearranging the sections and markedly expanding one section. While the edits were factual, the effect was to push way down the negative information about the organization. It also included information that was unnecessary. I notified the person of the COI issue. Apparently the person thinks the best way around this is to use a personal account. This appears to be a paid editor. See PrimHealthEditor's talk page for the discussion we've had. See for the edit that pushed down the data. Prime Healthcare has had issues with apparently paid editors in the past. User:Kgkeane519 is another example that's never been resolved. That person edited the same page as well as other Prime Healthcare related pages and the page for Prem Reddy, who started Prime Rsjaffe (talk) 03:16, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

@Rsjaffe: for accounts like that, where their username represents the whole company, report them to WP:AIV and they will be blocked. I have done so and a kind admin has blocked them. --- Possibly 05:50, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Only if they're vandalising. Otherwise report them to Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention. -- Longhair\talk 05:54, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Sorry, that's what I meant. --- Possibly 07:33, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

As part of the cleanup after User:PrimeHealthEditor was blocked, User:Kgkeane519 became active again and rolled back some changes. Reading KgKeane519's user page will give a good background. The user never did directly address the question but did state "As stated previously, I have received compensation from Prime Healthcare in the past for communications related materials." How should we address this? Rsjaffe (talk) 21:12, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Editor Kgkeane519 has a paid editing notice from 29 April 2018 that never answered. They have now dumped a block of promotional text on the article. I've a 2nd paid template. Hopefully they will answer that one. scope_creepTalk 21:19, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Kgkeane519 (talk · contribs) is clearly a single purpose account, and very likely a sock or meat puppet of PrimeHealthEditor (talk · contribs). They shouldn't be editing the Prime Healthcare Services article directly as their conflict of interest has been previously established and somewhat declared. -- Longhair\talk 21:28, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Disclosure: KGKeane519 is a retired print reporter and editor who, over a 33-year career in newspapers, covered various fields and industries, including technology, health care and regional politics. While in retirement I have received consulting fees from a number of clients, including for a time Prime Healthcare. I am no longer affiliated in any way with Prime; my interest in page updates has to do with my familiarity with this particular company and ensuring Wikipedia provides a fair and balanced history. Prime is far more than its controversies, though readers wouldn't know it based on the current edits. Controversies remain relevant and well-documented as posted. All posts updated by KGKeane519 are referenced with third-party media sources.  Preceding unsigned comment added by Kgkeane519 (talkcontribs)

Kgkeane519 has declared their COI at their userpage and I've asked them to request edits to both the Prime Healthcare Services and Shasta Regional Medical Center articles rather than edit them directly. -- Longhair\talk 21:52, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
I think an SPI needs opened here. scope_creepTalk 22:52, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

BreakTudo Awards

An AfD for this article was opened by me here. As in the first time an AfD was opened, the discussion was populated by new accounts (many of them are surely meat/sock puppets) voting "keep". This also happened as the BreakTudo (company that created the award) was put for deletion. These accounts come mostly from Brazil and as I'm a "deleter" at the pt.WP I'm familiar with the case. There, several articles linked with this company and this award are created and recreated over and over by proven socks. Due to this, I ask some experienced sysops from here to, please, keep an eye on this AfD. Regards. SirEd Dimmi!!! 05:38, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

@SirEdimon: I understand why you think it is a problem but I don't think this is forum for this kind of request. If there is any problems at the Afd, administration is probably already looking at it and would have aware of it, from the previous Afd. In any awards with 25 categories it would normally be considered junk on Wikipedia but with 94million participants, its likely notable. That is a lot of folk. Looking at the Afd, there is only 1 new editor came in to comment, with another SPA, so at the moment, its not overwhelmed. I know from experience about folk wandering in, it puts downer on you, but there is not much you can do. scope_creepTalk 10:21, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Scope creep, It's harder to delete this article here, because most of the editors don't speak Portuguese and therefore they can be easily deceived for sources that seem to be reliable, but are not. This why they create articles in several WPs but don't have an article at the pt.WP. You don't know the amount of work these socks and meat have caused (and keep causing) to us at pt.WP. We had to open several SPI, block several articles from recreation, etc. These accounts all come from Brazil and I assure you this award is not notable, and it is a huge case of using the WP as a SOAPBOX. All these accounts are sock/meat with no knowledge of the WP policy (you can see that by their comments at the AfD). User:Pedropaulohd, for example, who voted keep at this AfD is the same who created this article on pt.WP. An article that doesn't follow our notability criteria, created only to promote this BreakTudo Awards. Meaning that this editor have a huge POV in this case. By my experience on the pt.WP, I assure you this is a major case of sock/meat and undisclosed paid editing. SirEd Dimmi!!! 12:18, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
SirEdimon I see what you mean with that article. scope_creepTalk 16:21, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
SirEdimon, have you considered WP:SPI for this one? You might also post a short, neutrally worded note to WikiProject Brazil with a link to the AfD, to get more editors with language expertise to look at it. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 16:33, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

User:Blacknclick Paid work

User:Blacknclick has recently created a paid article, Rocket Science (production company) without disclosing that they are getting paid. Job was posted on Upwork.

Upwork Job Link: Wiki Page Creation - Rocket Science Freelancer profile:

Please review all of their work and let them know this is not allowed on Wikipedia. Thanks. (talk) 08:14, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Archived Upwork ad. The connection between the upwork ad and the resulting article seems quite damning. I moved the article to draft space (Draft:Rocket Science (production company)) per WP:DRAFTIFY so that it can be sent through AFC. --- Possibly 08:34, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
OK, the history of this is that JonoLynch-Staunton worked as a disclosed paid editor on Draft:Rocket Science (company) until they gave up on July 16, when they removed the paid disclosure from their user page. At about exactly the same time, the Upwork ad went up. The shocking bit is that the Upwork client profile says he has put out one gig and paid $1,000 for that gig!!!! Somebody really overpaid there-- it looks like about two hours editing max. Lol. --- Possibly 09:03, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
Possibly, I've filed an SPI between the two accounts and more here. Thanks, Giraffer (talk·contribs) 09:24, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
All indeffed. Giraffer (talk·contribs) 09:52, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
Nice work. The following isn't exactly a COI issue, but I think this is a good place to get some eyes on it - I find it interesting that Blacknclick, Muhammad Mahdi Karim and Mydreamsparrow were very active on Commons and have uploaded numerous featured/quality pictures there. I think the deception involved in their use of multiple accounts (besides the UPE, the accounts were used to votestack on enwiki FPC , and claimed to be different people - e.g. Mydreamsparrow called himself Augustus Binu on Commons, while Blacknclick called himself Pratyush Thomas) makes their uploads suspect. I'm reminded of this recent case in which a prolific featured picture creator on Commons was found to be stealing copyrighted photos. Basically, I find it hard to believe that such a skilled photographer would sock so incompetently. A close review of their uploads is probably warranted. Spicy (talk) 11:50, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
I've stricken this comment as Mydreamsparrow and Karim apparently are different people and the CU blocks have been lifted, which alleviates my concerns about the Commons uploads. Apologies to those involved. Spicy (talk) 04:44, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
Regarding the fact that the two socks were both featured pictured uploaders: that is the unfortunate part of this story, seeing as they uploaded so many great images to Commons. I was a bit skeptical of the SPI at first because the they use different cameras: Canon and Nikon. But CU confirms them as being the same user. Something does not make sense; I wonder if Mydreamsparrow was using the login credentials of Muhammad Mahdi Karim. See this also. --- Possibly 15:41, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
FPC notified here: Wikipedia talk:Featured picture candidates#FPC relevant sockpuppet investigation. Ugh, looks like I will have to figure out how FPCs were rigged. MER-C 18:56, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Muhammad Mahdi Karim and Mydreamsparrow have been unblocked at their request. There is still something unexplained about Blacknclick and the UPE article. --- Possibly 21:58, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
Keep an eye on the draft. They're will be another UPE in, in 4-5 months to tart it up for sure. That firm is heavily invested in PR. scope_creepTalk 23:23, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
I note that Mydreamsparrow has both autopatrolled and new page reviewer rights. See the log for reference. --Jack Frost (talk) 08:15, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

User:Leasha music and User:SportsNewz Odisha

Those names are representing a name of a company and cause disruption on the project.--MollyPollyRolly (talk) 18:04, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

@MollyPollyRolly: this is not the place to report usernames. Go to WP:UAA instead. --- Possibly 19:11, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
@Possibly: OK. I was send here by the WP:UAA. Never mind. The editor is blocked either way.--MollyPollyRolly (talk) 19:13, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

An Extensive History Of COI editing

Following my oath to both Ritchie333 and Beeblebrox and the community at large to tackle COI editing with less confrontation and double the efficiency this report would be the second this month I’m initiating in order to curb unethical editing practices. The first led to this. The editor Nkemonwudiwe has been an editor here for 11 years and has 238 edits, I would gladly give examples of very suspicious edits but I believe their talk page explains the extensive history of COI editing. Celestina007 (talk) 22:02, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

@Celestina007: please describe what the precise COI problem is. The article listed above is deleted. Nkemonwudiwe's talk page makes it look like they have multiple COI issues; I wonder by they have been allowed to continue editing? In one unblock notice they specifically say "My client" but have not bothered to disclose as a paid editor. Is that what you mean? --- Possibly 22:20, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
I see that you also brought this to ANI about three weeks ago. Link for reference. --- Possibly 22:28, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
@Possibly, honestly Possibly, it beats me, this goes beyond one article per se but a history of making dubious edits. I brought it to ANI, but I figured COIN would probably be a better venue for COI related issues. Celestina007 (talk) 22:31, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
I meant what is the exact COI issue you are concerned about? They have only made eight edits this year, with one being to remove a COI template. The article listed above was deleted three years ago. --- Possibly 22:36, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
I’m predominantly referencing the entirety of their existence as an editor, the aforementioned article stuck because if I vaguely remember the wording it was promotional in nature. Furthermore there was this recent one very promotional in nature, had I known I would have taken screen shots. In any case if the problem is the articles in question are now deleted and makes a COIN moot I think I understand your point. I however deemed it fit to flag the account for possible less than ethical practices. Celestina007 (talk) 23:13, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Christian Rosa

User Panghea clearly has a COI and is not disclosing. Forsooth1234 (talk) 17:11, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

User:RASSIOPEIA hiding paid contributions

Hi. It is good that they (User:RASSIOPEIA) are disclosing the paid edits, but seems like most of their edits are paid and they are not disclosing all of their paid contributions. Sometimes we have to confirm from them if they are doing paid edits, see here.

They have done 11 projects on Upwork, but have only disclosed 6 projects on their profile. For transparency, they should link their Upwork profile on their user page along with their real name as per Wikipedia guidelines. Thank you. (talk) 07:20, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I'm not hiding any paid edits, I always disclose them on my user page, 11 projects didn't mean I created 11 pages or made 11 made paid edits. I have not made other edits yet but I will surely disclose them on my user page. I haven't read about linking your freelance profile but I will do it soon. Thanks RASSIOPEIA (talk) 11:15, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

For a new user who engages in paid editing to use a user name that is extremely similar to a well-established editor (Cassiopeia, in this case) is very concerning. Especially since there seems to be no explanation for the one-letter-off user name other than to promote confusion. The all-caps name mimics Cassiopeia's signature and there is no natural use for "rassiopeia"; there is no legitimate English use for that and the only Ghits are to Commons and other user-generated sites. If the user here is in earnest about following community norms and the policies and guidelines, I suggest that they must change their name post-haste. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:18, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
In addition to that, this account was registered first edited in February 2021, but the Upwork profile says they "have Wikipedia writing & editing experience of 4 years, [...] regularly edit existing articles and create new articles, [...] know all the ins and outs of the platform" and there are more reviews of "completed" Wikipedia article-writing jobs on there than can be accounted for by its contributions. The quacking is deafening, blocked. Joe (talk) 07:11, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
Good work. scope_creepTalk 07:54, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
No difference but account was registered in August 2019. Parallel thread at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#User:RASSIOPEIA_hiding_paid_contributions. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 08:02, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

The American Prospect citation advocacy

Two paid editors for The American Prospect, who have disclosed that relation on their userpage, have a contribution history in which they only add citations to (or material sourced by) The American Prospect. The additions appear to be fairly indiscriminate and look to me to constitute WP:CITESPAM, and similar editing behaviour from paid editors editing on the behalf of the Anti-Defamation League was recently censured at COIN: Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_172#Anti_Defamation_League_citation_advocacy, so I thought I should bring this to the attention of this noticeboard as well. Volteer1 (talk) 15:58, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

User:BobStv UPE

Asked on multiple occasions to disclose specific employer, but no response.@BobStv:. -KH-1 (talk) 12:15, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

@KH-1: the user already put a PAID disclosure on their user page, but it is missing the employer, which a number of users have pointed out. It seems like BobStv is trying though, since they asked you within the last 24 hours on an archive page for your talk page how to do it properly. --- Possibly 17:39, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Continuous Innovation Framework

The editor has twice been asked by User:Theroadislong whether they have a conflict of interest, but has not answered the question, simply resubmitting the draft. The draft reads like a blurb for a business methodology (because it is a blurb for a business methodology). Robert McClenon (talk) 17:33, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

If I Google "Continuous Innovation Framework" + Arentvantspijker, it seems pretty clear what is going on here. And this promotional attempt has been going on since May 2019. --- Possibly 17:47, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
It should really be rejected at four go's to stop the time wasting. scope_creepTalk 17:54, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
Agree. Also, one does not even need to search to see the self promotion. Source #5 in the draft is "ISO56000 Compliancy". Continuous Innovation Framework. Arent van 't Spijker." Sources 6 & 7 also appear to be self-promotion. So it is WP:ADMASQ. --- Possibly 18:20, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
Ignoring any COI issues, it is also chock-full of gobbledygook. And if the last section, 'Ambidextrous organization', is intended to convey anything meaningful to readers it entirely fails to do so. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:01, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
I think ambidextrous organization means it really interactively utilizes flexible resources, conveniently re-engineers dynamic values. In fact, zero-defect-generation tangents do the right thing about the win-win price points. Customers need the growth years, and we fulfill that need with skill sets. A drop dead date—never before so advanced—can hardly help but to effortlessly take the issue off-line and in view of the fact that the customer culture change passes the baton concerning a writeoff we clearly can conclude that the dealer channels have culture changes. We're making forward progress towards human resource allocation by implementing a new-generation challenge that is both soup-to-nuts and lightweight. Customer bases swiftly have (as you will hear at the next shareholder's meeting) a solutions-oriented mission. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:05, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
Sadly, having looked at several Wikipedia articles on related topics recently, I had to read the above comment twice to assure myself it was satire. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:51, 5 August 2021 (UTC)