Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard: Difference between revisions

This user has engaged in persistent WP:OWN and edit warring behavior regarding the article on Tziporah Malkah (better known by her former name Kate Fischer) to remove details of her relationship with James Packer, widely covered by news reporting, and other unflattering aspects of her personal life. I suspect that this person has a close relationship with the subject. They took this photo of her which is located in Channel 9 Studios, which would unlikely to be able to accessed by a member of the general public. When asked about their potential COI, they have repeatedly deflected and refused to answer the question, alleging because they claim that they are not doing it on direct behalf of the subject, that they don’t need to disclose anything [1], which is not how COI rules work. Hemiauchenia (talk) 13:56, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have any financial, professional, editorial, or representational relationship with the subject, and I am not editing on her behalf. My edits on the article have consisted solely of enforcing core Wikipedia policies, particularly WP:BLP, WP:BLPSOURCES, WP:V, and WP:UNDUE.

1. Nature of my edits

Every edit I have made to the article has been the removal of:

– unsourced material

– poorly sourced material

– deprecated sources (e.g., Daily Mail)

– gossip‑level claims

– contentious statements lacking verification

– undue or sensational phrasing

I have not added promotional content, flattering content, or any material that could reasonably be described as protective or whitewashing. My edits have been strictly policy‑driven.

2. The engagement claim

The engagement claim has never been supported by a reliable, contemporaneous source. It originated in speculative reporting and has been repeated without verification. Under WP:BLP and WP:BLPSOURCES, contentious claims about a living person must not be included unless supported by high‑quality sources.

A recent 2024 Sydney Morning Herald article includes a direct statement from the subject that she has never been engaged to any man. This reinforces the existing BLP requirement that unverified claims should not appear in the article.

3. The image

Regarding the image: the “own work” tag on Commons refers to the uploader’s licensing declaration, not authorship. The photo was taken from the subject’s public Instagram feed. I did not take the photo, and it does not indicate any personal or professional connection.

4. Behavioural allegations

I have not edit‑warred, attempted to WP:OWN the article, or refused to discuss content. I have opened and participated in talk‑page discussions and BLPN threads. My edits have been reverted with personal accusations rather than policy‑based arguments, and I have been asked to “drop the stick” while raising legitimate BLP concerns.

5. Summary

My editing behaviour is consistent with Wikipedia’s expectations for handling biographies of living persons. I am not editing with a conflict of interest, and the concerns raised appear to stem from disagreement over BLP enforcement rather than any evidence of COI. Deeuu (talk) 19:42, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have any financial, professional, editorial, or representational relationship with the subject, and I am not editing on her behalf. does not confirm/deny whether you know the subject on a personal basis. I’m not asking you to reveal your real-life identity or any personal details about your relationship, just a simple yes/no question. Knowing the subject personally is a COI, regardless of whether you are editing on their behalf or not. Please see Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide. For volunteer editors: Ethically, you need to disclose your conflict of interest. You have one if you are editing about yourself, or anyone you know personally. You have repeatedly refused to confirm/deny this when asked, which will make people suspect that you have a COI. Can you provide evidence that the photo was on the subject’s Instagram feed? I did a reverse search and I could find no evidence that the photo has ever been uploaded anywhere else aside from Commons. If it was taken from her Instagram then it probably should be deleted as a copyright violation. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:24, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I am not editing with a conflict of interest. Wikipedia does not require editors to disclose personal information or private relationships, and I will not be doing so. COI on Wikipedia is defined by editing on behalf of the subject, being paid, or having a professional, financial, editorial, or representational connection. I have none of these.

Regarding the image: the “own work” tag refers to the uploader’s licensing declaration, not authorship. The photo was taken from the subject’s public Instagram account, which is why it was tagged as such. If there is a copyright concern, that is a matter for Commons, not COIN. It has no bearing on COI.

My edits have been strictly policy‑based and focused on WP:BLP, WP:BLPSOURCES, and WP:V. The engagement claim has never been verified by a reliable, contemporaneous source and is contradicted by a 2024 Sydney Morning Herald report. Removing unverified contentious material from a BLP is required by policy and does not indicate a conflict of interest Deeuu (talk) 20:34, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Deeuu, you cannot license an image unless you own the copyright. The person who holds the copyright is almost always the creator of the work. If you took the photo from Malkah’s Instagram, you do not own the copyright. The declaration you made, ‘own work’, does in fact mean you are saying you personally were the photographer. That’s why the Commons page for the file reads I, the copyright holder of this work, hereby publish it under the following license… I’ve tagged it for deletion since you say it is not your own work.

You may find this decision tree helpful for any future uploads: [2] Meadowlark (talk) 05:51, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have now had to remove this unverified engagement claim twice, including once after opening this BLPN thread. This is a contentious statement about a living person that has never been verified by any reliable, contemporaneous source, and it is contradicted by a 2024 Sydney Morning Herald report in which the subject states she has never been engaged to any man. Under WP:BLP and WP:BLPSOURCES, this material cannot remain.

Since the initial removal, there has also been a noticeable increase in unsourced or poorly sourced negative additions to the article. This suggests the page may need closer BLP oversight to ensure stability and compliance with policy. I would appreciate BLPN guidance on maintaining a BLP‑compliant version going forward. Deeuu (talk) 20:29, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Every single comment I’ve seen so far from @Deeuu has been obvious LLM output. Can we just block them for CIR/LLMCOMM and be done with it? —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 19:26, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with this characterization and think you need to AGF more in regards to LLM usage. I’ll give the 20:34, 17 January 2026 (UTC) comment in particular as an example of a comment that does not appear to be LLM output. Czarking0 (talk) 21:51, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

User has created multiple US-immigration related drafts and articles that all talk about or use Global Immigration Partners as a source, sometimes the only source. I have draftified the articles that were created in mainspace, for example:

Exmamples of pages created in draftspace:

For the most part, these pages are full af WP:AISIGNS and are clearly machine-generated, but only one of them could be CSD nominated under G15:

Some of these pages have been rewritten inhumanely fast, and they have all been churned out in an inhumanely fast succession. I’ve left the usual {{uw-coi}} template on their talk page: User talk:Alex jovy § Managing a conflict of interest.

Responding to one of my warnings on their talk page, they asked me if I was for hire to write content that I can share with you and edit it so it is apropriate for Wikipedia?. To be fair, when I asked if they were being paid for this, their response was that they are not paid to do this. I’ve asked if have any connection to this law firm, but they haven’t responded to that so far.

The account seems to have been created to edit their own Wikipedia article, Alexander Jovy, back in 2011. The account made no other contributions to Wikipedia since then, until it started churning out the Global Immigration Partners articles a few days ago. —Gurkubondinn (talk) 17:48, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Gurkubondin, as previously stated I was merely trying to add new topics that had not been included on Wikipedia before. I am new to creating content on Wikipedia and apreciate your advise. The refrences where given to one particular law firm and to others. No bias is intended. The sources qouted are from highly respected news publications. Following your advise no further topis have been created/added. Alex jovy (talk) 18:09, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

What is your connection to the Global Immigration Partners law firm? —Gurkubondinn (talk) 18:11, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

What is your connection to the Global Immigration Partners, Alex jovy? —Gurkubondinn (talk) 09:29, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Alex jovy, since you have resumed (some) editing of your draft Draft:Franchise Investment Strategies for E-2 Visa Applicants, can you please explain what connection you have to this law firm? —Gurkubondinn (talk) 14:19, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The user has seemingly confirmed an undisclosed COI in a reply to me on their talk page now: Diff/1335311393. Though this edit was made with a TA while logged out, I think that it is reasonable to assume that this is Alex jovy. —Gurkubondinn (talk) 15:07, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, we aren’t permitted to link external websites on this noticeboard when discussing conflicts of interest – even blatantly obvious ones. So I will instead suggest that Jovy stops wasting everyone’s time here, unambiguously declares their obvious CoI, and saves me the effort of submitting an email with the relevant details to ArbCom. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:24, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Saved you the effort, I’ve emailed ArbCom already. —Gurkubondinn (talk) 12:17, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Or to be specific, I emailed paid-en-wpwikipedia.org with non-public evidence of the COI. —Gurkubondinn (talk) 12:23, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This sock ring has been discussed here previously, but I just read this article published about a week ago and I’m wondering if there’s any more cleanup that needs to be done based on the edits it discusses. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 19:28, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Just saw the signpost piece about this. The reporting does not specify who or where to look for COI. However, I suspect that a somewhat through investigation of Qatar and Qatar sports and 2022 FIFA World Cup related articles would find something of note. Czarking0 (talk) 07:56, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The Qatar page itself is suspicious. Top editor is a blocked sock. The pages created by second highest editor have exactly the sort of Qatar/sports intersection that raises concern. @Ohnoitsjamie: had some concern with the third highest editor though they seem somewhat normal to my initial check.

Who wrote that? investigation lead me mostly to users that seem fine. I did see this sock User:Banana Republic. I also see this user which raises concern for me. Their user page highlights a barnstar from the second user I pointed out above which I was already slightly concerned with. They also have the same pattern of of Qatar/sports that is suspicious. Finally they were recently blocked and then unblocked for nonconstructive editing at Al Jazeera Media Network.

Additional concern.

Already blocked for cv

Seems sus Czarking0 (talk) 08:29, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Qatar National Vision 2030 could use a similar investigation but I am taking a break Czarking0 (talk) 08:30, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This user has repeatedly engaged in apparent COI editing related to the company Friendly Captcha. A different user (User_talk:Bushdavao) was recently banned for promotional editing on Friendly Captcha (which was then moved to draft space). I warned Pmitmit against COI editing on January 7 but received no reply. On January 22 they added a reference related to the company, claiming that it was a secondary source, but the author was actually the cofounder of the company. Given the recent pattern of abuse from this company I believe it deserves more severe action. StereoFolic (talk) 07:38, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This is an inter-wiki problem see: spamcheck. @MER-C: do you know how we can alert fr. it. and de. ? SmartSE (talk) 14:32, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

m:Wikiproject:Antispam. SRG will want to see blocks in cases like this. You could also have the link added to the spam blacklist if not used frequently. MER-C 17:00, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Over several years, the activity of GSHD2023 has primarily revolved around inserting references to scientific publications by Gerhard Schmidt into Wikipedia articles, particularly the Chicxulub crater article, often reinsterting them despite having been reverted. Often these come in the form of conference abstracts, which lack peer review and appear to contradict peer reviewed literature on the topic. I note that Gerhard Schmidt’s initials match the first part of the name of the account, which makes me suspect that there is a conflict of interest. A COI notification to their talkpage several years ago was met with no response. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:40, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

In an earlier attempt to create this article, I did not adequately adhere to Wikipedia’s standards regarding neutral tone and avoidance of promotional language. That draft was appropriately declined. I understand those concerns and have since taken care to revise the content to align with Wikipedia’s policies on neutral point of view, verifiability, conflict of interest, and no original research.

I am the creator of the SoapStandle product and therefore have a conflict of interest under Wikipedia’s guidelines.

I have prepared a revised, neutral draft supported by independent third-party coverage and am seeking guidance on whether submitting it through Articles for Creation, or requesting review by an uninvolved editor, would be the appropriate next step. Jgnmemphis (talk) 22:03, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Create a draft and submit it through AfC. That is the process for obtaining review by an uninvolved editor. Also, please note that your writing about your product amounts to paid editing, and you need to adhere to the terms of use on paid editing, not just the COI guidelines. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:11, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I will note, however, from conducting a search for your product, it does not appear to meet the notability guideline for products and it is highly likely that your draft will be declined. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:12, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You can create a draft here. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:14, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve identified a user with a blatant Conflict of Interest. In one of their edit summaries, they describe their relationship with the subject of the article. Many of their edits are promotional. They’ve removed an COI tag I’ve added to their page and have seemingly ignored my messages on their talk page.

Would it be appropriate for me to revert their changes? I dont want to be in violation of the 3RR and I’ve already added the COI tag twice. Any feedback would be greatly appreciate!. Mustbeotherwise (talk) 00:56, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve indefinitely partially blocked them from the article. I think you can revert back to before their changes. You’re nowhere near 3RR. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:09, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I just figured better safe than sorry, you know how it is. Mustbeotherwise (talk) 02:20, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Voorts oops, I just realized I didn’t notify the person in question. I’ll be more careful in the future. Mustbeotherwise (talk) 02:24, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Should I go ahead and notify them now? Mustbeotherwise (talk) 02:26, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:26, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Sorry abt that! Mustbeotherwise (talk) 02:31, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This is so strange. I started on Wikipedia in 2004 and not much since.

The Elois Jenssen page is awfully outdated and cannibalized with solid facts and accomplishments missing.

She was my stepgrandmother, had no direct family or descendants and despite her accomplishments was getting no solid narrative.

A letter from President Ronald Reagan to Elois Jenssen Andre with condolences.

What is true is that I need tech practice posting and alertness to guidelines.

Best regards, Regi.Andre ~2026-58138-4 (talk) 11:35, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @~2026-58138-4. If you are User:Regi.Andre, you might want to log in so we can verify that it’s you. I appreciate your self reflection regarding your posting. If you are User:Regi.Andre and want to request an edit to the page, I would recommend using the Wikipedia:Edit Request Wizard/COI. I hope this was helpful! – Otherwise (Talk?) 19:48, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/LilaMorillo. At first this appeared to be simple sockpuppetry, but it’s looking like paid meatpuppetry. At least the newest account has disclosed their paid editing, but this comes after previous accounts denied it. Pinging @Padgriffin who is currently helping to clean this up, and @331dot who made the initial MaganMan block. Jay8g [V•T•E] 06:37, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I am not connected to LilaMorillo or any other account named in this SPI.

I am a paid Wikipedia editor who was contacted by a client via LinkedIn.

The client provided draft content, which I reviewed and submitted through Articles for Creation with paid-editing disclosure.

I do not control, coordinate with, or act as a sockpuppet for any other account. Kilaopi (talk) 08:01, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

How do you explain the fact that you edited three articles associated with previous sockpuppets? Jay8g [V•T•E] 08:37, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have trouble buying that explanation when the overlap with subjects who had recently deleted articles is so severe- at minimum this would imply meatpuppetry, and whoever contacted you is part of the LilaMorello sock ring. Padgriffin ^{Griffin’s Nest} 08:41, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Kilaopi: Could you please respond to this? You’ve just recreated Draft:Laila Odom, continuing your 100% overlap rate with subjects tied to the LilaMoillo sockfarm. Padgriffin ^{Griffin’s Nest} 12:55, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Also pinging @X-WikiRae:, who has also just popped up and tried to AFC a MaganMan-created article without any attempt to fix any of the concerns, while declaring Paid Editing- could you please address these COI issues and how you are linked to MaganMan? Padgriffin ^{Griffin’s Nest} 10:31, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Padgriffin, @Jay8g As I’ve already told you, I don’t have any relation with LilaMoillo or anyone else. I just got a client who gave me the already created drafts and asked me to publish it, so as per Wikipedia guidelines, I disclosed the paid editing and submit those drafts for the review, and all of them are deleted, and Greg James draft was deleted due to the suspicion of me affiliated with some banned user, which hasn’t proved yet, and still someone deleted it.

And about Laila Odom, I also got this project from another client. I’m getting this work from LinkedIn. What am I supposed to do if I’m getting just these kinds of projects? I have to pay my bills. Please let me work in peace, I’m totally working according to Wikipedia guidelines.

Thanks! Kilaopi (talk) 17:47, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I just got a client who gave me the already created drafts and asked me to publish it

So you admit that you didn’t actually write the articles, you just… happened to accept clients who have already written it for you and all you’re doing is making a free account and publishing it? Why would anyone pay for that?

I’m getting this work from LinkedIn. What am I supposed to do if I’m getting just these kinds of projects? I have to pay my bills.

Wait, you guys are getting paid? Padgriffin ^{Griffin’s Nest} 18:12, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I’m getting paid for my work, I’ve disclosed my paid affiliations on my userpage, also on articles and their talk pages. Kilaopi (talk) 09:51, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Has been adding self-citations literally everywhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-60541-8 (talk) 18:57, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that there is some problematic apparent WP:SELFCITE going on here, but it is not quite as clear cut as in many cases, because some of the publications do have an awful lot of citations e.g. this comes up 5935 cites on google scholar. Citing brand new papers with few citations e.g. is far more problematic. SmartSE (talk) 14:54, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Edits like this one where they spam a brand new paper as the first reference in an article are classic WP:REFSPAM though. There’s a lot of work to do to clean this up. SmartSE (talk) 15:02, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Sorry if I’m escalating this too quickly — I’ve never made a COI report before.
The above user presents themself as an official of Axpert Media per their username which appears to be against username policy. I have considered to post {{Uw-coi-username}} or {{Uw-paid1}} on their talk page but am not sure which would be the more appropriate one (and whether I would know how to follow up on it if they were to reply to the warning as the template suggests), so I came here because the username policy page suggests this noticeboard if someone with a problematic username also engages in problematic editing, like promotional editing, which appears to be the case here. Another user confronted them about the potentially promotional nature of their post but they denied it[3]. On a positive note, they did use the article talk page instead of just adding the source they are seemingly associated with, but as far as I understand policy, they need to change their username and/or make a clear COI declaration.
Nakonana (talk) 19:24, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I would go with {{Uw-coi-username}} — Pemilligan (talk) 21:35, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Editor has chosen to use AI to respond on their user talk.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 05:33, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Editor appears to have an undeclared connection to the subject, given their repeated attempts to add non-neutral content and non-notable names.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 19:47, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I will not directly disclose how this editor is connected to this college but I am confident that any editor who spends a few seconds looking into this will conclude that they are almost certainly an undisclosed paid editor despite being warned about this 7 years ago. A block is certainly in order until they comply with our disclosure requirement or otherwise convince us that they’re not connected to the university. ElKevbo (talk) 23:33, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

What edits show this conflict of interest? I can’t see that this user has ever edited Lorain County Community College. — Pemilligan (talk) 00:02, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You’re right – I pasted the wrong article. It should have been Eastern University (United States) and I’ve corrected the heading and other text. Thanks for catching this error! ElKevbo (talk) 00:14, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Unforgvn20 (talk · contribs) is a single purpose account with a clear conflict of interest regarding topics involving the Gülen movement, and its related pages, including its members, and the controversies surrounding this organization. Editing pattern is a text book definition of WP:PROMO, and its highly possible that they are either closely related to this organization, or are being paid by this organization delete the controversies regarding it from Wikipedia. Ecrusized (talk) 10:19, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I went through the history of AK Party–Gülen movement conflict another page this account has edited. This diff seems somewhat suspicious no the edits to the causalities box and units box. Similar somewhat questionable diff. Czarking0 (talk) 15:43, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ecrusized

I am not being paid by any person or organization to edit Wikipedia, and I have no conflict of interest regarding the Gülen movement. Your accusations without evidence is a violation of WP:ASPERSIONS

My removals and challenges have been based on concerns regarding sourcing quality, attribution, and compliance with WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE.

If there are specific edits believes are problematic, I invite discussion of the sources and wording on those kromium (talk) 15:45, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Related article talk page discussion between these editors. Unforgvn20 (signs kromium) has responded with reliable sources to explain their changes.Czarking0 (talk) 16:09, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

They using ChatGPT Shadow4dark (talk) 16:28, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Common Wikipedia Backlink Mistakes That Get You Blacklisted. “Contributor” seem to mean COI-editor, while “editor” is the grumpy rest of us. For the interested.

Right, turns out I couldn’t publish this with a link. See if you can guess why. The website is theinscribermag dot com. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:40, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Laser-powered phosphor display (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Spam article from 2013 recently tagged per G11 about a non-notable proprietary technology, cleaning up cross-wiki. Created by SPA Yellowyam (talk · contribs), who claims to be affiliated with the company (Prysm) that invented the technology, with no other edits. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 12:42, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

G11 declined, PROD added. I also observed that the main author Thatbombayboy (talk · contribs) (approximately 52%, vs. 31% for Yellowyam per page stats) is part of a known sockfarm. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:23, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

A bunch of edits recently to the page Elizabeth R. Cantwell raise questions of COI and/or off-wiki coordination.

A few days ago a TA added content to the article which I think it would be fair to say does not paint the article’s subject in a great light. I tried to clean it up a bit to make it NPOV, BLP-compliant etc.

The above-listed accounts have, in the time since, made several attempts to delete the information from the page wholesale.

The first, the TA, was blocked from the page for edit warring, though I believe that block has now expired. They haven’t edited since. Their edit summaries indicated some kind of COI (and a belief that any inclusion of reporting on the state audit was, to them, completely unacceptable, and casting aspersions on editors who added it back), though they have not yet answered questions about it posted on their talk page.

The latter two’s edits have removed the critical content from the article without explanation (see here and here) and added more glowing descriptions of the article’s subject in the process.

Rocqueperez created the page about Cantwell in 2021; their description of her then as most notable higher education research professional and an international space engineering leader seems to me to potentially indicate some kind of COI, though not necessarily. The fact that they have only edited the Cantwell article and nothing else on Wikipedia is also of note; the fact that they came back to Wiki after 4.5 years of inactivity to remove the critical paragraph is also odd. I left a notice on their talk page.

Anthonyp1531 has only edited two articles: the Cantwell one and…Draft:Rocque Perez. The fact that they came back to Wiki for the first time in six months to undo my undo of one of Rocqueperez’s edits makes it seem like the question of off-wiki coordination is at least worth asking, and outright sockpuppetry is not impossible. I also left a note on their talk page, though only quite recently.

I don’t know if the TA is related to the other two; I think probably not. The fact that Rocqueperez suddenly re-appeared on Wiki after the TA was blocked means it’s not impossible that there was coordination, but their approach is much less belligerent than the TA was so it’s probably a coincidence.

Rocqueperez and Anthonyp1531 clearly either know each other or are the same person, I would say. The draft article Draft:Rocque Perez also seems to indicate that Rocque Perez worked at Arizona State University at the same time as Elizabeth Cantwell, if I’m doing my maths right. In fact they worked in communications, quite possibly during the time the Cantwell article was created (in June 2021), raising the possibility that this was at one point undisclosed paid editing.

I don’t know how to proceed. I strongly suspect something odd is going on here, but am aware that since I rewrote that critical paragraph, continuously reverting attempts to remove it is not necessarily a good look.

Courtesy pings to @TonySt, @ESkog, @Rsjaffe as you were all peripherally involved.

—AntiDionysius (talk) 13:47, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Based on a cursory glance at off-wiki information, on-wiki information, and on-wiki behavior it’s obvious that Rocqueperez has a conflict of interest and is potentially acting as an undisclosed paid editor. Anthonyp1531’s only edits being to the Elizabeth article and to Draft:Rocque Perez suggests either sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry. tony 14:38, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Done a little more digging. Based on publicly available information, in June 2021, when the article was created, Rocque Perez was working in PR at the University of Arizona (not Arizona State, as I previously said). At the same time, Elizabeth Cantwell was the same university’s “Senior Vice President, Research & Innovation”. AntiDionysius (talk) 17:25, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

User has ignored multiple warnings to disclose a COI, and has created promotional pages in mainspace which have been draftified. MightyRanger (talk) 23:25, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

User has ignored warnings to disclose a conflict of interest after creating a highly promotional article. Instead, they moved the article back into mainspace after it was draftified and removed the COI tag. MightyRanger (talk) 23:36, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to me that the subject is using SPAs to clean-up negative information from his article or they are taking help of a company. In any case, this should be monitored and protected. Thank you. ~2026-78902-8 (talk) 02:20, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the users involved in whatever this is are sockpuppets of Btw Santhosh, who is another “hacker.” Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 03:29, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all. I stumbled across this article recently that appears to have been created as a promotional piece for the subject over 10 years ago, and has existed minus inline citations or much substantial change since. The article as it was intially created by Felixgecko in December 2007 reads entirely like a promotional piece (here). In March 2008, Felixgecko edited the article again (here) “as per input from Mr. Keyes, himself”. The article was then largely edited by bots until December 2025, when a TA edited the account with the edit summary ‘I am the subject’. (here). While the article and the shady behaviour is quite old, this behaviour still raised some eyebrows for me. The TA user did not respond to a notice left on their talk page (here) so I am now bringing this issue here to see what should be done about this. As a side note, a cursory google search does not suggest that the subject is notable enough for an article in the first place due to lack of reliable sources or coverage over time. Thanks for any help. 21stcenturycoelacanth (talk) 22:49, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

After User:Ynalauv was warned not to engage in undisclosed paid editing on the first page creation attempt, a single-purpose account tried to create an extremely similar page. MightyRanger (talk) 04:44, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This user’s only edits have been attempts to create partly-LLM PROMO pages for Skild AI and its founders. While denying a conflict of interest, they’ve ignored advice at AfC and moved their own creations into mainspace. MightyRanger (talk) 05:29, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]