Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
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 MiszaBot II.
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. Wikipedia's policy against harassment takes precedence over the COI guideline. If revealing private information is needed to resolve COI editing, and if the issue is serious enough to warrant it, editors can seek the advice of functionaries or the arbitration committee by email.
  • 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 What is a conflict of interest? list. 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, MiszaBot II will automatically archive the thread when it is older than seven 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:


User with suspicious name editing adding seemingly personal information to article. Also, the article is the only one edited by user

Edits by User:Munenejohn

The user has repeatedly moved Draft:Africa Policy Institute into mainspace, bypassing WP:AFC despite request. Munenejohn has not provided disclosure despite requests:

K.e.coffman (talk) 00:00, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

I have requested move protection, but ideally a response can be got from Munenejohn.--SamHolt6 (talk) 00:08, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
Sure enough, a simple off-wiki search implies (on the basis of username) that the editor in question may be affiliated with the Africa Policy Institute. Cant really say more, respecting WP:OUTING.--SamHolt6 (talk) 00:11, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
For anyone looking into this, please keep an eye on the revision history. The user still doesn't seem to understand that they should not remove COI templates (or AFC comments) until the article has been reviewed. See this revision just 20 minutes ago. – numbermaniac 07:21, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
He's again gone and removed the template with no explanation in the edit summary. He either doesn't understand it despite a billion explanations on his talk page, or he deliberately doesn't care. Is there something we can do about this? – numbermaniac 05:28, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
@Numbermaniac: I have started a thread at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Munenejohn concerning this issue. I am guessing this will be resolved shortly.--SamHolt6 (talk) 06:02, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Another new user, with a one week old account, has created a draft at Draft:AFRICA POLICY INSTITUTE (API). This user appears to be following the process by submitting their draft for review properly, but the content of the article is, in large parts, identical to the original at Draft:Africa Policy Institute. Don't know if this user is an undisclosed paid editor, but this might be worth keeping a watch on. – numbermaniac 12:06, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Blocked as a sock of AfricaPolicyInstitute. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 21:10, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Time for a review of all cryptocurrency articles

The price of bitcoin, the 1st and most important cryptocurrency, has crashed by 40% in the last 2 weeks, and by 80% since last December. The rest of the cryptocurrency universe is generally doing much worse. Reuters has an excellent article on the cryptocurrency press today - how they accept cash, or even bitcoin, to write biased stories. I'll link to it below together with some earlier stories that show pretty much the same thing.

  • Irrera, Anna; Dilts, Elizabeth (27 November 2018). "Special Report: Little known to many investors, cryptocurrency reviews are for sale". Reuters. Retrieved 28 November 2018.
  • Faife, Corin (25 October 2018). "We Asked Crypto News Outlets If They'd Take Money to Cover a Project. More Than Half Said Yes". Breaker. Retrieved 28 November 2018.
  • Biggs, John (18 September 2018). "Inside the pay-for-post ICO industry". TechCrunch. Retrieved 28 November 2018. - this story links to a price list for various publishers here

Needless to say, we need to avoid citing any of the sources named within those articles. We've got hundreds of cryptocurrency articles (300? Let me know if you have a better estimate) and most have very poor sourcing. It might be a good idea to clean them up or delete them before the industry disappears. Smallbones(smalltalk) 02:09, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Category:Cryptocurrencies totals to about 243 articles if you include the subcategories. Category:Digital currencies also exists - not sure how many articles are in both categories. – numbermaniac 10:57, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
I'm preparing a report at User:Bri/COIbox83 on all the articles, drafts, userspace drafts that use the "tainted" sources. It's a large list. Will report back with final results. Bri.public (talk) 17:51, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
Followup below... by the way, my report is based on external links search for the Breaker list of media that take cash for coverage:,,,,,,,,,, and Bri.public (talk) 19:29, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
Have added to my analysis per "de facto investor fraud" in Reuters story linked by Smallbones. Bri.public (talk) 19:43, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm in. Starting with userspace and draftspace where I have a lot of experience. Legacypac (talk) 18:45, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
Since Legacypac has started nominations for deletion, maybe the list speaks for itself. I'll just say there's a lot of SPAs involved with these crypto articles, no surprise there. Bri.public (talk) 19:29, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
  • I've begun checking mainspace articles also in using the list created by Bri. Should we mark there (or somewhere) which articles have been checked by a volunteer? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:10, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
Most of the ones I've checked in user and draft have or will soon turn into redlinks. I sent a few to WP:MFD for consideration. You can edit the list to add notes. Legacypac (talk) 21:26, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Hell yes. I've been looking over the crypto articles of late. WP:RSN has in the past few months frequently considered crypto blogs not to be RSes - and even the relatively good ones, like Coindesk, are absolutely useless for deciding notability. But my goodness there are so many spammers. So - the first thing to do is, scour the articles of crypto blogs. Any that are to be kept, need justification. This will take care of a huge amount of the rubbish. Keeping to mainstream sources solves most of the COI problem here - David Gerard (talk) 22:10, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
  • I believe I addressed most of the Draft amd Userspace pages at User:Bri/COIbox83 - will see what is still standing in a bit. Legacypac (talk) 22:47, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
Everyone probably knows this already, but I thought I would repost links to Wikipedia:General sanctions/Blockchain and cryptocurrencies and {{blockchain notification}}, as it would be relevant to notify COI editors in this topic area. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 18:14, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

I've searched Draft space for "cryptocurrency" and was able to G11 around 100 pages. Other words "fintech", " crypto currency", "blockchain", etc are worth searching. I've not even touched userspace yet. Legacypac (talk) 18:28, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

More questionable drafts

More here for consideration, also found with external links for questionable coin publication(s). Bri.public (talk) 21:17, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

I tagged all U5/G11 and expect they will he deleted. Pretty much anything in this subject area can be G11 and/or U5 tagged and will disappear. Legacypac (talk) 21:40, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Possibly questionable articles

More ... two (noted) have survived AfD but look wobbly to me. Bri.public (talk) 22:25, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

A lot of old stuff (from the 2013-2014 era) turns out to have RSes because academics loved to write about it as interesting ideas ... but almost everything here, the sourcing is really bad - David Gerard (talk) 00:06, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Oliveboard article created by apparent Search Engine Optimization analyst (they're transparent enough to use their own name as their username)

Hello. I didn't realize the potential (hard to be coincidental) severity of the situation until I started looking at their edits and discovered this (potentially) deliberate sneaky use of Oliveboard as a source in another article: I imagine this is to boost search rankings. I'm a new editor, so I think I'm out of my depth here. Someone else should take over for me. Sincerely, Shashi Sushila Murray, (message me) 11:03, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi everyone. I think that they didn't notice my notice on their talk page, so I replied to them on the Oliveboard talk page and encouraged them to come here for help. Here is what I wrote:
Hi, Abhishekkramesh. Sorry for not replying until now. If this is some kind of mistake, then of course you are editing legitimately. Obviously my intention is to help you. However, because I am a new editor and I don't have enough experience with (potential) conflict of interest editing, I deferred to the conflict of interest noticeboard. There you will find experts who will better be able to help you! I provided a link on your talk page to it, but I will link you to it here too: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Oliveboard article created by apparent Search Engine Optimization analyst (they're transparent enough to use their own name as their username). They will be able to answer all of your questions. Be warned: they might be less friendly than I am, but if you are persistent and assertive while talking to them, you should get resolution.
They have questions about how to prove that they don't have a conflict of interest. Sincerely, Shashi Sushila Murray, (message me) 21:31, 4 December 2018 (UTC)


Jytdog appears to be leaving: User_talk:Jytdog#That's_all_folks. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:14, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

My guess it's a "you can't fire me I quit" situation in light of the Arbitration case that's about to be opened to look at what he's been doing offwiki. —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 19:00, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
Well not quite, as he says "I urge Arbcom to do just do a motion and indef or site ban me." So I think it's more a case of "you can fire me, but I will have already quit". A shame really as this was, as far as I can see, a big mistake rather than something really malicious. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:10, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
And a big loss to Wikipedia, that such a prolific contributor had to leave. Mistake no doubt, but that wasn't a reason enough for indef or a retirement. hope he returns back someday.--DBigXray 20:57, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Richard C. Lukas

This little edited article (93 edits over the past 12 years) has been edited rather heavily by SPAs (all the users above edited only or mainly the Lukas article. Some of them also added Lukas material to other articles - e.g. [1][2]. Content over the years has consisted of unsourced flattery - e.g. the first edit of the bunch which introduced "He is recognized as a leading authority on Poland during World War II.". RichardLukas admitted a COI - diff "These changes were directed to me by my father, Richard C. Lukas. For any questions, please contact me at <redact>. Thank you." in a minor marked edit which wasn't minor. The latest editor, White Eagle 70, has been adding (in minor marked edits) flattering OR - [3] "the first systematic English language study" (an assertion which per my reading of this very well trodden field (going back decades) - is false), as well WP:OR/disparaging content towards some of Lukas's critics - diff - which included Jew labelling an historian (while un-linking his article). Some help from a COI regular would be helpful here.Icewhiz (talk) 14:20, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

I concur with your assessment. I went in and did a first round of POV-scraping, but there is more to be done. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:15, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

United Daughters of the Confederacy

This article appears to be one of several targets of an organized, coordinated editing effort by members of the subject organization. See the article's talk page for details. I came across the article while patrolling for vandalism, and am not going to intervene myself at this time as the issues are complex, the edits are not vandalism, and the subject matter is outside my area of expertise. The article could use attention from neutral editors. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:14, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

I am guessing the relevant thread is Talk:United_Daughters_of_the_Confederacy#United_Daughters_of_the_Confederacy's_project_to_"fix"_Wikipedia.--SamHolt6 (talk) 19:42, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
UDC does not like sources that define them as White Supremicist, KKK supporters, proponants of the Lost Cause narrative and other such truisms. More eyes always needed at UDC Legacypac (talk) 21:32, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
I think that quite a few of us are already aware of this issue, but as Legacypac notes, more editors having the article on their watchlists would be welcome. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:27, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Chris Wilson (pollster)

I stumbled upon this edit by User:Amy Catherine R while I was RC Patrolling the edit filter log, and it caught my interest by the wording, so I took a closer look at the page history. A lot of it seemed like PR to me, and was almost identical to this edit from May. I came to the conclusion that the editor might have been an undisclosed paid contributor, so I warned them with the paid disclosure template, none of which have been answered. Looking further at the page history, it seems that editors that have claimed to be from WPA Intelligence in the past have made edits to this article going as far back as 2012. Because of that, I tagged the article as having a potential COI as well as a potentially undisclosed paid editor involved in it. OhKayeSierra (talk) 20:37, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

I have blocked both accounts as spam only accounts. Alex Shih (talk) 10:59, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

The Culinary Institute of America

After some recent warnings/instructions at User talk:Jnormy from Jytdog on not directly editing articles, Jnormy continues to directly edit The Culinary Institute of America. I would notify Jytdog, but it appears they've left Wikipedia. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 18:22, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Meh. Yes, editing under a COI is to be discouraged, but it has never been outright banned, and the content here seems fairly neutrally worded. The recent additions are of a tone I would expect of someone to write in who didn't have a conflict of interest. If you had written it, I wouldn't change a word of it. For that reason, I don't see the issues with the recent edits. COI is only an issue when it produces bad writing, and when it doesn't, I don't see the problem. We only require that people declare their COIs and that they write otherwise neutral text. The user seems to have done both. --Jayron32 19:17, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
Yes, these edits look fine to me as well and seems to be within existing guidelines. Only when they start to insert promotional/corporate puffery under the disguise of "updated information" I would start to be alarmed. Alex Shih (talk) 07:56, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
Well they have in the past... Just because these recent edits are okay doesn't mean they can subvert WP:COI and only request-edit when they think it'll be problematic, can they? ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 14:00, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
"Subvert WP:COI"? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:42, 10 December 2018 (UTC)


This user appears to be a single purpose editor. They have not responded to three requests by me on their talk page to disclose their CoI status, and they continue to perform problematic edits.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cwmhiraeth (talkcontribs)

Blocked by Edgar181 for undisclosed paid and disruptive editing. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 16:32, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Niall Ferguson

Negative material being removed without explanation, and replaced by more positive material. Failure to use edit summaries, failure to respond to User talk notices. DuncanHill (talk) 15:00, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

I've blocked Koolhausmedia for the username. 331dot (talk) 15:44, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

General advice on COI policy - New article I am creating - advice if this is a COI issue?

Hi - I'm a University librarian (in the Business faculty) and a Wikipedian. I'm creating a page for an academic staff member who is also a composer of note in another faculty (Music). Is this of itself, a COI issue? While we both work for the same institution, he isn't in the same department, and I'm not otherwise connected to him, and not doing it for the cash....just to help out. Any advice here would be good, thanks!!! Deathlibrarian (talk) 04:13, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi Deathlibrarian, and thanks for reaching out in advance for advice. I see you've been around Wikipedia for a long time so I imagine you are pretty well-versed in policies and guidelines. If you aren't representing his interests, then I don't see a conflict of interest. Nonetheless, putting a brief note on your userpage (User:Deathlibrarian), summarizing you wrote above, would reassure everyone that you are editing in good faith. If you have any kind of personal or professional relationship with him as a colleague, friend or acquaintance, it would be good to note that. Here's an example I whipped up, which you could alter to your liking:
I work for (institution). I created an article about (person), who is also a faculty member at (institution). I am not being paid to write about him. (Any other relevant details)
Perhaps other will have different opinions, but I think that should be enough. Good luck with your article! --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 17:05, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
Thanks very much Drm310, I'll do that.If anyone else has anything else to add, or sees it as an issue, please comment - (I've now added the draft of the article to this post as well).Deathlibrarian (talk) 20:50, 12 December 2018 (UTC)


British hip hop (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Koko.BMF (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

User appears to be promoting themselves as an "up-and coming road rapper" on the page - see [4] [5].

Thanks, Kirbanzo (talk) 19:23, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

I left a reply for them at Talk:Koko, here. Hopefully that gets the message through. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 21:04, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Epic Sciences

New user; username suggests they are affiliated with or representing the subject organization. The only 2 edits so far have included removal of the Undisclosed Paid COI template from the article. Amp71 (talk) 01:01, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi Amp71. I left a response on my User talk page. Apologies for the confusion. My previous edits were not meant to include removing the 'Undisclosed Paid' COI (I'm not a native coder) and I must've deleted it while drafting new text. The goal of updates was to refresh the history, funding rounds, and current offerings of the company. How do I best disclose that I work for Epic Sciences when posting? Thanks, EpicSciences (talk) 01:30, 13 December 2018 (UTC)


Extra eyes on this article would be appreciated, MeproUS was warned about COI with no response and then another new user Cadlaxer23 shows up and starts making edits. shoy (reactions) 14:03, 13 December 2018 (UTC)


Returning to an editor I took an interest in previously, NeedaAnsari00 created a number of suspiciously-high quality articles before ceasing to edit. I asked them about having a possible COI, but they continued to edit without responding. However, I recently was contacted on my talk page at User_talk:SamHolt6#Conflict_of_Interest/Paid by the subject of one of the articles created (albeit because of a different issue), where they more-or-less confirmed they were in contact with the editors who created their article. As such, it seems fairly easy to conclude (when given the quality, disparate topics, and disappearance upon being questioned) that NeedaAnsari00 was at the very least a COI editor and at the worst an undisclosed paid editor. I have boldly moved several of the articles they created and edited without the input of other editors. I started this thread to inform other editors.--SamHolt6 (talk) 00:45, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Claire E. Walczak, Ph.D., Indiana University & Draft:Valerie Dean O'Loughlin, Ph.D.

While perusing the AFC feed, I noticed an interesting phenomena. Before I begin reviewing an article (Walczak's), I always check to see if the author may have a conflict of interest. While the article seemed clean, (for some reason) I clicked back on the new pages feed. I don't know how to explain this with words (in an efficient manner) so here is an image. Im not really sure what the protocol for handling this is, so I figured I would ask.

The author of these posts appear to be the subject of the opposite.

SilverplateDelta (talk) 19:06, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

User: Pranay.offcl

User created draft talking about themselves in a heavily promotional way, which I tagged as G11. I have also left a COI notice on their talkpage. Agent00x (talk) 15:16, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

The username alone suggests a COI and I will block this user. Deb (talk) 15:23, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Leonid Afremov

Pages on this artist are being spammed. I can't see what account has been doing the previous spamming because the articles have been deleted. The account is probably a sockpuppet, but I need admin help to identify the sockmaster. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:49, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Not spamming at all. Just one article was created two days ago. Since it was deleted we responsibly created a DRAFT to be examined by Wikipedia. It was deleted too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scm5791 (talkcontribs) 18:20, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

User:Scm5791 - Who is "we"? You say that you "responsibly created a draft", but creating copyright violation is not responsible. Anyway, in Wikipedia, one account should belong to one human. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:33, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
@Scm5791: The draft was removed because it was an "Unambiguous copyright infringement of". See WP:COPYVIO. General Ization Talk 18:25, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
@Scm5791: As were previous versions of the article, going back to 2013 in both draft and mainspace, for the same reason. General Ization Talk 18:28, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

I have nothing to do with 2013 version. I'm just a fan of Leonid Afremov trying to post an article of him. I'm from Argentina. What has to be done to use that excellent biography? scm5791 (talk) 18:37, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

You apparently have something to do with the most recent version, which was deleted as a copyright violation, as I stated above. See the guidance at the link I posted above. General Ization Talk 18:46, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

I will try to post a draft of Leonid Afremov with my own words. Not Copy/Paste from other websites. Thank you. scm5791 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:02, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Bazadais created an article in mainspace on December 15, 2018 - about the same time as Scm5791. None of the accounts in the deleted history appear to be blocked; Special:Contributions/Bob Roberts created the original article and Special:Contributions/Afremov appears to be the oldest coi account who says he is the son of Leonid Afremov. Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:59, 16 December 2018 (UTC)


Rjensen is involved in a discussion regarding the External Links section at Military history. They have a close connection to two of the links: Web Sources for Military History and H-War. Rjensen's conduct and editing seem to be entirely appropriate, however I have encouraged him to disclose his COI when discussing these sites, which he disagrees with. This is a very minor issue and there's no need for sanctions, but I'd like to get input from a few uninvolved editors. –dlthewave 18:24, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

I do own "Web Sources for Military History" and the possible COI issue was not hidden-- another editor already raised COI about the website and they dismissed COI as not an issue As I told Dlthewave, I think I am following the COI two guidelines: a) = WP:EXTERNALREL Subject-matter experts (SMEs) are welcome on Wikipedia within their areas of expertise and b) from WP:SELFCITE Using material you have written or published is allowed within reason, but only if it is relevant, conforms to the content policies, including WP:SELFPUB, and is not excessive. Citations should be in the third person and should not place undue emphasis on your work. On the second point, H-War. No. I have no "close connection" with H-WAR--I am a subscriber like thousands of people & I posted a few messages in recent years. It is one of 200+ academic discussion lists published by H-NET-- i was one of the leaders of H-Net when 130 new lests were created in the mid 1990s. Richard J. Jensen covers my permanent departure from H-Net in 1997. (I did remain active on some lists until a few years ago, but not H-War). I suggest that "close connection" is not a useful criterion here regarding ne & either H-War or H-Net. I did complain that the guidelines on COI are very vague --they seem to be specific only on paid editing (I was never paid to edit) and I hope the folks here can make some improvements. Rjensen (talk) 19:30, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
I think this is a non-issue. It would be one thing if Rjensen was editing articles on those sites, but participating in a discussion on a related article about a list of external links which includes them? Come on. A formal disclosure would be completely over the top. – Joe (talk) 21:57, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Huge Amount of Paid Editing and Paid article creation is done in India.

Please Take a look at these articles most of the artcles are just "GRADE SCHOOLS" and we all know that grade schools are not notable at all. The citation provided are not independent, and grades school are not notable these types of articles are created by such private school to attract students so they can increase their PROFITS, it's a very common practice in india. See And also check who creates such advertisements he should be banned from editing Wikipedia there are more than 1000s of such non-notable paid advertisements in English Wikipedia.

You are my last hope for Independent Wikipedia in India. parents are forced to pay high fees in these schools as we all trust wikipedia, and these schools take advantage of it.

i am just a user with no rights like you, so i can not delete them all requested for deletion of and it got deleted.

LIST OF SUCH SCHOOLS BY STATE: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nuksanhai (talkcontribs) 14:44, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

@Nuksanhai: thank you for bringing this up. I don't know if this is an especially big problem in India, but it seems to be a big problem almost everywhere. For example, see Category:Elementary schools in British Columbia, or more narrowly School District 23 Central Okanagan.
I'll encourage you to bring a list of non-notable elementary schools here (start small) and also to take some others directly to AfD. My feeling is that almost no elementary schools are notable unless they have something special about them such as being a historic site, being the teacher of x Nobel Prize Winners (well there's at least one high school that should be notable that way), or perhaps a "founding school" of a well-known teaching method. This will take a lot of work to clean up. Smallbones(smalltalk) 16:07, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
(off topic) See Uni High Alums Smallbones(smalltalk) 16:13, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Smallbones thanks for your interest in this, here is a list of about 8 schools,_Mathura_Road

Nuksanhai (talk) 18:19, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from ""
This content was retrieved from Wikipedia :
This page is based on the copyrighted Wikipedia article "Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard"; it is used under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA). You may redistribute it, verbatim or modified, providing that you comply with the terms of the CC-BY-SA