Jump to content

Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"WP:COIN" redirects here. For the WikiProject on articles about coins, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Numismatics.
    Welcome to Conflict of interest Noticeboard (COIN)
    Shortcuts
    Sections older than 14 days archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

    Click here to purge this page
    (For help, see Wikipedia:Purge)
    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 meets a requirement of the Conflict of Interest guideline. A conflict of interest may occur when an editor has a close personal or business connection with article topics. 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.

    When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page.
    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.
    • Do not post personal information about other editors here without their permission. Non-public evidence of a conflict of interest can be emailed to paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org for review by a functionary. If in doubt, you can contact an individual functionary or the Arbitration Committee privately for advice.
    • 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}} (with an explanation on the article's talk page), and/or the user may be warned via {{subst:uw-coi|Article}}, if not already done.
    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 meets 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 conflict of interest edit requests is where COI editors have placed the {{edit COI}} template:
    Wikipedia conflict of interest edit requests

    suspicions about non-disclosing paid editor Iuliusnanus

    [edit]

    User:Iuliusnanus is promoting paid edit services on Chinese social media (e.g. Xiaohongshu, profile). One of their work ([1], archive) is publishing a pharmacologist's Baidu Baike page to Chinese Wikipedia. Other edits here in English Wikipedia should be reviewed. cc User:Liz and User:CNMall41. --Tim (talk) 07:09, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I have disclosed this on my user page.
    User:Iuliusnanus/paid contributions
    https://w.wiki/FKv4
    Iuliusnanus (talk) 07:44, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I only had a single instance of editing conduct for Iuliusnanus which I feel is undisclosed paid editing. That thread is here. The initial response was that they were not paid. The follow-up response is that they were approached to edit the draft, but they doubled down saying they were not paid. Ponazzi had a similar response to the COI question after editing the same draft. See that thread here.--CNMall41 (talk) 16:37, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi, I’m not acquainted with Ponazzi, and I didn’t receive payment because the creation was not successful. Iuliusnanus (talk) 10:01, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If you are offered pay to do work, conditional on completing a task or on the work being published, you are still required to make a declaration as a paid editor. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:43, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I note that you say you have performed notabiliy checks for people you have added. When I search for Jiang Siqi (or Jiang Shi Qi which seems to be an alternate romanisation) I get no news results. I get a grand total of five when searching with the Chinese rendering. Maybe this is due to my location but I'd be of the opinion an article isn't warranted under Wikipedia:SIGCOV. ToeSchmoker (talk) 20:47, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi, according to the notability criteria for this entry, please refer to WP:NBEAUTY. Miss World China is the oldest pageant and one of the biggest in China.Iuliusnanus (talk) 10:06, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That is an essay, it's not Wikipedia policy ToeSchmoker (talk) 09:11, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Anyway, I declined the vast majority of paid editing requests—partly to save my own time.Iuliusnanus (talk) 10:16, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    We are not interested in the requests you decline; but in ensuring that those you accept are done within policy. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:59, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Says the paid editor CNM etc. Don't make me spell it out. I know more of your clients than you think.2603:800C:35F0:35D0:24C4:2B94:DF0F:F4E1 (talk) 08:37, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You hiding behind an IP to sling mud is weak. Other than recognizing a Chinese curse, I have no idea who “CNM” means. Iuliusnanus (talk) 16:02, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The whole point of this thread it your failure to disclose what was an obvious conflict of interest (one of your own admission at this point). COI and PAID editing is not forbidden, but UPE is. Had you not deflected in the first place, I highly doubt this thread would have been opened.--CNMall41 (talk) 04:14, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think CNM is a reference to User:CNMall41 -- Pemilligan (talk) 21:05, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Their first edit was calling out Iuliusnanus for advertising services but also referred to "paid editor," then here noted the "paid editor" as "OP" (referring to TimWu007), then changed it to "CNM etc" (possibly referring to everyone - who knows). That aside, the best route here is for Iuliusnanus to stop deflecting and make full disclosure of all their PAID work, regardless if they are paid up front or if the "creation" is "successful." --CNMall41 (talk) 04:14, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I’ve already made declarations on my user page. Some content has been moved to Draft, so I removed them. Some of topics I edited are about commercial companies, but that doesn’t mean I have COI with them. If you believe they don’t meet the Notability, you may nominate them for deletion. To make it easier to identify, I will make a declaration on the talk page in the future. Thanks. Iuliusnanus (talk) 06:28, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Some content has been moved to Draft, so I removed them. You are still required to make a declaration, even if the relevant content is in Draft: (or any other namespace). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:40, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    For the draft CaddxFPV, Linktel Technologies and FinVolution, I have re-disclosed on the talk page. Iuliusnanus (talk) 06:56, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't play games with me, pal. A paid editor dogging others about COI. I strongly suggest that you stop responding here and elsewhere.71.36.43.154 (talk) 13:46, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Not playing with you but good advice. Iuliusnanus (talk) 06:57, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You keep assuming that I'm talking about you.71.212.62.197 (talk) 16:24, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    American College of Greece marketing manager removed article's controversies section

    [edit]

    Recently the marketing manager of the Deree private college in Greece removed a controversies section on the Wikipedia article about their college in Wikipedia. They left no explanation for doing so. Obviously this is a conflict of interest so ideally this account should no longer contribute to their article. 176.58.196.53 (talk) 23:50, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Deleting criticism by affiliated author without any arguments really looks very bad. But did you try contacting them first and asking them about the reasons for this? Solaire the knight (talk) 23:59, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    As it says above, This page should only be used when ordinary talk page discussion has been attempted and failed to resolve the issue. It looks like you haven't attempted that.
    Also, You must notify any editor who is the subject of a discussion which you don't seem to have done, either. -- Pemilligan (talk) 01:19, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Good day. The section you mention was indeed removed by me. There was no corruption scandal, it is not mentioned anywhere and the sources sited do not mention anywhere neither Deree nor The American College of Greece. The mention that "the college's organization was able to acquire a private higher education license by the Greek government, in spite having failed to fulfill legal obligations in terms of presenting a valid curriculum program." is not true, because no application has been made by ACG. The section was again removed. Marinosk (talk) 06:38, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The marketing manager of the private college in question appears to keep removing the controversies section on the college's Wikipedia article. This is a big conflict of interest. Dereestudents (talk) 11:11, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Dereestudents: Your username too implies that you have a conflict of interest with ACG. Is this the case? Aydoh8[what have I done now?] 11:16, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Marinosk is holding a paid position at the private college in question as marketin manager. I don't have something to disclose but I'm glad you liked my quirky username. Dereestudents (talk) 11:19, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Triggerhippie4 cool down from israeli topics?

    [edit]
    Retaliatory filing, please keep discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators noticeboard/Incidents#ThurnerRupert disruptive editing at Israel and attacks. Note that aside from this discussion being redundant/retaliatory, COIN is not the appropriate forum for general complaints about disruptive editing; WP:ANI is generally the appropriate forum, with WP:AE being further preferred for Israel topics and other designated WP:CTOPs signed, Rosguill talk 13:05, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    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 introduction to israel does not fit any more onto a large screen, so i tried to shorten it. the location of israel occurs 2 times in the intro, so my try was to move one of the occurrences in a more appropriate location of the article. this caused triggerhippie to revert it, and instead of focussing on the subject matter, and maybe open a thread on israel talk page, make slightly insulting suggestions, to use sandbox, familiarize with rules etc.. i do not aggree with triggerhippie4 approach to let a tiny content disagreement slip immediate into an insulting statement on my talk page. she even removed explicitely the part to contact her if i would not agree. beeing suprised by such unexpected text, i am wondering if there is more conflict free, more factual way to achieve results. would you think that suggesting to triggerhippie4 to abstain from editing israel and related topics for a year or so would make it easier? ThurnerRupert (talk) 07:11, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Noted at ANI: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#ThurnerRupert disruptive editing at Israel and attacks. Triggerhippie4 (talk) 14:56, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You could both abstain for a year considering you've both been edit warring in a ARBECR CTOP area with neither of you opening a talk page discussion until today. Nil Einne (talk) 11:24, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    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.

    Olga Shishkina (musician)

    [edit]

    Although the editor claims to not be receiving compensation for their edits, they continually add promotional content and remove maintenance templates without properly addressing the reason those templates exist. Attempts to make the article neutral have been reverted as "disfiguring".   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 18:23, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Notably, Monimutkaisuus made the same or similar edits to the article as User:Olga85shishkina, using similar edit summaries ("added data"). Jähmefyysikko (talk) 18:33, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Editor is still removing templates without properly addressing the reason those templates exist.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 21:25, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Daniele Compatangelo

    [edit]

    Editor Titikaka3456 apparently has a vested interest in maintaining the resume-like version of this article.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 19:37, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    They tried to deny this but forgot which account they were logged in to, so they couldn't create a user page for TikitakaDA (talk · contribs). ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:34, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Dear user,
    It appears that you are repeatedly removing well-sourced and verifiable information from the article related, possibly due to political bias or personal views. The content you removed has been part of the page since 2017 and is supported by credible references.
    Accusing editors of being related to the subject of the article, without evidence, is a serious assumption and a violation of Wikipedia’s policy on assuming good faith. Repeatedly deleting sourced material to discredit a subject also goes against Wikipedia's content and neutrality guidelines.
    Please refrain from targeting this reporter or other users based on speculation. Instead, engage in constructive discussion and ensure you verify sources before making removals. Let’s focus on improving the article based on reliable sources and Wikipedia's established policies.Thank you for your attention Titikaka3456 (talk) 21:09, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The content you refer to was added by Daniele Compatangelo (talk · contribs) so is not the evidence you believe it is.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 21:13, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello dear user,
    We both have no evidence of what you are referring to. I follow this Italian reporter online, and I believe that information that has been there since 2017 shouldn't be deleted. I think we should move on to editing other subjects.
    All my best, Titikaka3456 (talk) 21:33, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "No evidence"? Seriously?   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 22:40, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    By the way, "since 2017" is also wrong.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 22:48, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    In addition to most likely being a sock of Daniele Compatangelo, Andrewikilover, Robrob7578, Luca68745 Antonio68246, TikitakaDA Titikaka3456 has recently publicly stated on an AFD that they will not abide by the decision made at the AFD by stating "I intend to restore the page". I believe this user should be prohibited from editing any article, talk page, or discussions concerning Italian journalism--VVikingTalkEdits 14:26, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    JoshGracin25

    [edit]

    JoshGracin25 insisting on editing his own page, whitewashing, sufficient notifications. Augmented Seventh (talk) 06:15, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    The current version of the article contains material that is misleading, unsourced, or framed in a way that does not accurately reflect events, and reverting corrections without considering the sourcing amounts to allowing false information about a living person to remain published. Reliable coverage already exists that clarifies the timeline, and omission or distortion of those facts violates the neutral point of view policy. I also want to note that accusations about my personal identity or how the account is being used are unfounded and irrelevant. Wikipedia editors are expected to focus on the quality of edits and sources, not speculate about contributors. I have already opened a BLPN notice so this can be reviewed under the correct policy, and I ask that further discussion remain on content and verifiability rather than personal assumptions. JoshGracin25 (talk) 06:23, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This is seriously concerning - a single purpose account where the subject repeatedly polices his own page. MmeMaigret (talk) 05:31, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked for WP:IMPERSONATE until they confirm their identity as the subject, or they change their username if they are not. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 21:22, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    David B. Pakman

    [edit]

    @Dpakman appears to have made numerous edits to the article David B. Pakman and other articles including Venrock and EMusic that would seem to indicate a clear Wikipedia:Conflict of interestviolation. Volcom95 (talk) 05:54, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    @Volcom95 Btw: Does the article even meet GNG? MmeMaigret (talk) 06:58, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I see that he does a lot of public speaking and there are a few articles that use him as a subject matter expert of sorts, but nothing that really says "obviously notable". -- Reconrabbit 17:52, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not believe the subject is notable but didn't want to go there right away. A search did not produce much. Volcom95 (talk) 19:14, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    There is nothing at all on the user's talk page. Where is the prior discussion? Why have you not notified them of this report? Please see notice at the top of this page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:54, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You are correct. And that is certainly a step I should have taken. However, the users seems to be dismissive of your notice.Volcom95 (talk) 19:20, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Blancco

    [edit]

    Hi all, I have a conflict of interest with Blancco so am avoiding any direct edits. I’ve proposed merging Blancco Ltd. into Blancco Technology Group and prepared a draft update here: User:Fairweather12/sandbox.

    The proposal has had little response on the article talk pages, but I've received two pieces of feedback: 1. that it should potentially be merged the other way, so that "Blancco" is the main page, 2. To add more 3rd-party sources (which I've done in the draft). Could an uninvolved editor please review and assist with implementing the merge? Apologies if this is not the right space for this. I've tried to follow WP:PROMERGE but have found it a bit baffling. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fairweather12 (talk • contribs) 11:08, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    - Not the right space - yes, seems like a query for the Teahouse.
    - Merge - I was originally struggling to see how either company was notable. Based on the sources, I would have said Biancco, but BTG was proposed for deletion back in 2016, and the deletion discussion suggested that there was SIG COV and ways to improve the article (which don't appear to have been added).
    - Your draft - I'm not convinced your sandbox article is a merger (ie synthesis) of the two articles but a new article that doesn't really establish notability.
    - My two cents - Before merging, I would start by expanding BTG to add the possible sig cov identified by @Cunard in 2016 and then actually merging and reconciling the two articles.
    - Signature - ps you forget to add your signature a lot. MmeMaigret (talk) 04:31, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Austin College

    [edit]

    Editor Waltersvc likely has an undisclosed connection with the college. Except for the addition of in-line external links, their last edit before the partial block for edit warring is virtually identical to one made by an IP registered to the college.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 20:34, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Richard Dowling (Australian politician)

    [edit]

    45.248.49.240 has made only two edits, both substantial promotional changes to this article.

    Section blanking: removed content including reference to Dowling's lobbying role at Meta. Promotion: added content sourced mainly from his first speech with resume-style language like "taught him how to explain economic issues in plain terms"

    Single-purpose, unregistered account appears to be self-editing or editing by a staffer, violating WP:COI, WP:PROMOTION, WP:NPOV, and WP:BLP. AFR has also reported on these suspicious edits.

    Unable to contact editor directly as IP has no monitored talk page. Jurassicparkpork (talk) 23:02, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    You couldn't start the talk page? -- Pemilligan (talk) 23:13, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, you're right - I've added the required notice. Jurassicparkpork (talk) 08:13, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Financial Review analyzed these recent edits. Ed [talk] [OMT] 02:39, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If they've only made two edits (effectively one, since they were consecutive), how does this meet the requirement at the top of this page:

    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.

    -- Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:32, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The attempted talk page discussion failed to resolve the issue. Jurassicparkpork (talk) 00:33, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Which attempted talk page discussion? Where has the IP editor "repeatedly added problematic material over an extended period"?Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:37, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    American Association of Petroleum Geologists

    [edit]

    Both editors appear to be AAPG employees and are likely coordinating with each other to keep the global warming section out of the article. Most recently by Nbraley as "irrelevant".   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 20:19, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I just reverted COI edits, then discovered this notification. That's all! - Walter Ego 20:23, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    see also AAPG Wiki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) ([2]) 74.126.63.142 (talk) 21:40, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Annah Stretton (NZ fashion designer/businesswoman)

    [edit]

    Background: @Mesomay asked in the Teahouse for help with the draft article Annah Stretton 2 as they were struggling to get the article accepted.

    I cleaned up the article and submitted it for re-review. I was then pinged by @Nil NZ who advised me, to my surprise, that that there were tone and source issues that needed to be addressed before the article would comfortably pass AFC.

    This made me review the article's history. After I submitted the article for review, Mesomay continued to amend the article, and reintroduced most of the previous issues.

    Issue: Mesomay's account has all the appearances of a single purpose account. In addition, Mesomay has also uploaded a photo of the subject as their "own work" suggesting they know the subject.

    I have asked Mesomay if they have a undeclared COI but received no response.

    ps. It may be unconnected but there were also two Annah Stretton drafts, Annah Stretton #1 was created by @RKLET about a month before Annah Stretton 2.

    MmeMaigret (talk) 04:48, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I have partially blocked the account in question from editing the article for a week in order to draw their attention to policies i have highlighted for them. Let's see what happens when they return to editing. Mfield (Oi!) 04:58, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for bringing my attention to the COI policies. As I am new to editing wikipedia, are you able to explain how I declare a conflict of interest. Mesomay (talk) 17:54, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mesomay: See WP:COI and, if you have a financial interest, WP:PAID. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:03, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Article is now published, as Annah Stretton. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:23, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Rouhollah Zamzameh

    [edit]

    This user has three times added information about forthcoming books to this article. As the text says the books are forthcoming in variously 2025, 2026 and 2027, I find it difficult to see how an unconnected editor would know about books two years away from publication. The editor has also added quotations from Zamzameh's books, and images of book covers, in a way that reads promotional to me (these have been removed from the current version of the article). I posted about CoI on the editor's Talk page, and asked directly whether they know, work for, represent or are the subject of the article. The reply reads, in part, I am glad to inform you that various individuals from different IPs, in the U.S., Europe, and Iran, have contributed to the creation and improvement of this page ... I must clarify that I am not the person you mentioned. I believe that individual has enough responsibilities and engagements that they would not be involved in these particular editorial discussions. In fact there haven't been any IP edits to the article, so I'm not sure what this means. If someone can take a look at the article, and / or discuss this with the editor further, that would be good. Thanks. Tacyarg (talk) 20:41, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    ShafferSL and Cape Air

    [edit]

    User is repeatedly changing the Chairman of Cape Air to read "Stefan Shaffer", which is suspicious given this user's username. There is a real person who is currently in Cape Air's leadership team called Jeff Schafer, but no Stefan Shaffer according to the website, so either this is a conflict of interest, or they're trolling. Regardless, the information they're adding is unsourced and, with a quick glance at Cape Air's website, also blatantly false.

    Note - directed here from AIV. Danners430 tweaks made 16:48, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Andy Gross article - Declined COI request and removed third opinion

    [edit]

    Hello,

    I’m closely connected to the *Andy Gross* article and submitted a COI request on the Talk page suggesting two factual updates with reliable sources:

    I disclosed my COI properly and asked for an uninvolved editor to review. Editor **Hipal** repeatedly reverted or removed the requests and declined them as “repetition.” I also tried posting to request a Third Opinion, which was removed.

    Could a neutral editor please review the Talk page and advise on whether these sources and additions meet Wikipedia’s standards?

    Thank you for your time and help keeping the article accurate and well-sourced. Somonelikeyou (talk) 04:57, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Yeah...@Hipal: ...It's not clear where this was actually discussed beyond claiming it was already discussed. GMGtalk 13:51, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Somonelikeyou appears to have been using a LLM to create requests without understanding responses and engaging directly with editors. The editor has edited the article directly, and claims otherwise. I'm not sure what to make of all this other than we're close to if not ready for admin action on the account.
    A review of the edit summaries and talk page should make it clear what's going on. --Hipal (talk) 16:20, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Hipal: Since you like to cite WP:COITALK, that guidance also means that you have no obligation to respond to these requests, especially if you can't be bothered to address them. GMGtalk 16:32, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I've addressed the requests, but if you're reviewed everything and would like clarification, let me know.
    The account is failing to engage in discussions, is editing the article directly in violation of COI, is apparently using a LLM to fill the talk page with repetitive requests, and appears unaware of their own editing.
    Given the problems coming from the account, I think it best steered to it's behavior to proper engagement, or request admin action. --Hipal (talk) 16:44, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Then go properly engage. GMGtalk 17:18, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Which is what I told Somonelikeyou to do. Now we're here. Somonelikeyou needs to engage at this point. --Hipal (talk) 18:07, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Well you've been both unhelpful and uninviting. Thank you for your input. Have a nice day. GMGtalk 18:28, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    MORA seems to be not only an acceptable source, but the best possible source. MORA's list of people inducted into MORA's hall of fame is reliable, like citing the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences website to report on who won an Oscar.
    The FOX Atlanta reference you have posted doesn't link directly to the article - but the actual article exists and seems reliable for the limited purpose of saying that a comedy special exists. The argument against it is that it is publicity rather than an independent source, since it is based on an interview with Gross, but that seems a very technical objection under the circumstances. An argument could be made that the wikipedia article should not contain postings about upcoming tv shows, even if reliable, because that would be advertising or hagiography rather than reporting. It would depend on the significance of the show. Bob Gollum (talk) 09:41, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Use of LLM and apparently unaware of use of account

    [edit]

    @Somonelikeyou:, could you please address the concerns about the use of your account? Are you using a LLM? Are you aware of all the edits made from your account? --Hipal (talk) 20:05, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

      • @Hipal:** I understand, thank you for clarifying. I personally control this account and post everything myself. I don’t use any automated tools or AI to post or edit directly. Sometimes I check things with AI or Google outside of Wikipedia just to make sure I follow the policies and word things correctly. I’m happy to follow the COI process and just want to make sure I do everything the right way.
    Somonelikeyou (talk) 22:25, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for responding.
    Can you explain why you edited the article directly against your COI, after claiming before and after those edits that you would not do so? --Hipal (talk) 21:27, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    @Seraphimblade:, since you were the editor that first expressed LLM concerns, collapsing a request, is there anything you could add or clarify? --Hipal (talk) 20:20, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Afraid I don't have much to add. I just noticed it was clearly LLM, as is the comment here (the use of Markdown is one dead giveaway; LLMs seem to always do that for some reason, and a human editor would quickly notice that Markdown wasn't resulting in their intended formatting.) I don't know much about any other issue involved here; I just happened to get a bot summons to the RfC and didn't want to see volunteer time wasted by responding to a chatbot. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:24, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Marshall Berman

    [edit]

    It would appear as if from the editing history that at least one, if not both of these accounts are connected closely to the subject (Marshall Berman), in the interest of being careful to not doxx anyone, I would like for either admin or CheckUsers to investigate, separately someone else started an SPI previously on these two accounts which was closed as incomplete earlier and the closer suggested that a COI notice might be the better way to go. Ironically, the account that launched that SPI was themselves a sock. Iljhgtn (talk) 01:42, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    This image upload was made by 81567518W, and this image upload was made by Dberman94. Both claim the images of Marshall Berman were their "own work" and appear to have a close connection to the subject (without saying more which seems apparent though could doxx the subject of this COI inquiry). Iljhgtn (talk) 01:49, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Sock MarineArchitect (talk · contribs) was blocked after harassment targeting my account and this image in particular. Iljhgtn (talk · contribs) appears to have the exact same axe to grind. 81567518W (talk) 12:37, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The sock investigation opened by that account closed without being formally carried out actually because one of the two named accounts (named here above) had not been active in 6 months, so it appears to have more closed out of a technicality before truly being looked in to. That said, I agree it is highly strange that that random account would have come along and opened the SPI. Frankly, I am not sure what was going on there, but they seemed to have no clue as to what they were doing and appear to have made the inquiry incorrectly formatted or something, regardless that weirdness does not change the underlying facts of what is being dealt with in this COI. Iljhgtn (talk) 13:27, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    What's your motivation here? 81567518W (talk) 13:42, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    To see the apparent COI addressed with proper disclosures per WP:COIEDIT, as it says there: "you should disclose your COI when involved with affected articles; you are strongly discouraged from editing affected articles directly; you may propose changes on talk pages (by using the { {edit COI} } template), so that they can be peer-reviewed; you should put new articles through the Articles for Creation (AfC) process instead of creating them directly; you should not act as a reviewer of affected article(s) at AfC, new pages patrol or elsewhere; you should respect other editors by keeping discussions concise." Beyond COI though the image on one of the pages I found is an apparent copyright violation as it appears to be obviously from a book, magazine, or other printed work. I am reviewing the relevant printed materials published by Marshall Berman to determine which, if any, of those it might have come from. These uploads can be made, but just need to be made with either the proper disclosures, or after requesting others to upload for you. I upload images all the time by the way, so I would be happy to upload on your behalf or to help you with the proper licensing disclosures or non-free file upload if you need any help there. Iljhgtn (talk) 15:48, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Conspicuously absent is your personal motivation in helping to remove my contributions. 81567518W (talk) 13:33, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:COMPETENCE is required when uploading images to Wikipedia. Iljhgtn (talk) 23:13, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Nduplan

    [edit]

    Based on his contribution history, especially the now-deleted edits on himself and his company, User:Nduplan is more than likely Dr. Neno Duplan, President and CEO of Locus Technologies. This makes him a UPE. The question I left on his Talk page is yet unanswered. Owen× ☎ 18:59, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    You left a COI notice on Nduplan's talk page on 9 October, then reported here on 10 October.
    Nduplan has not edited since 30 September. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:59, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Payment by one's employer

    [edit]

    I'm a rare visitor to WP:COIN; if I'm asking a FAQ, do please just point me to the answer.

    "Editors who are or expect to be compensated for their contributions must disclose their employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any paid contributions."

    I confess that I haven't been counting, but it has seemed that the great majority of the "disclosures" I've seen have read: In accordance with the Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use, I disclose that I have been paid by my employer for [whatever] [emphasis added]. This is of course not disclosure of the employer, and indeed the string by my employer adds nothing.

    Is this evasiveness now tacitly tolerated; and if it isn't (or shouldn't be), is there a recommended (effective, not excessively brusque) response to it? -- Hoary (talk) 05:07, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    In many such cases, the article subject is the employer. Have you checked for that?
    [This discussion belongs better on WT:PAID, btw.] Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:57, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Terms of Use state You must disclose each and any employer, client, intended beneficiary and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. Just saying "my employer" is insufficient. Schazjmd (talk) 23:28, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User: Kolaku

    [edit]

    User Kolaku registers an account, and heads straight for articles that have been the past targets of UPE. Other articles that they create or edit (Robert S. Goodale (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), Mikael Kubista (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)) follow a topic and editing pattern that frequently rides with UPE. They do not respond to a paid editing query on their talk page, and continue to edit. It doesn't look quite like the same outfit that was working on the Douglas Cumming page before, or I would take to SPI. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 11:08, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Can you clarify in what way the Goodale article "follow[s] a topic and editing pattern that frequently rides with UPE", please?
    I note that a COI notice was placed on Kolaku's talk page on 9 October 2025 at 13:39:20 UTC. Their only edit since then was the creation of Robert S. Goodale. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:46, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The Goodale article is not the red flag that the Cumming and Loya articles are. I _am_ seeing a large created version, which is sometimes indicative of a writing supplied from a client or PR firm or similar; the choices of topics taken together are suggestive to me of UPE. It is true that they made only the one (8494 character) edit after the UPE warning. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 15:08, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User:JamesHolloman +1 on Alpha Genesis

    [edit]

    JamesHolloman only posts to one page (Alpha Genesis) and has a consistent pattern of promoting the company and removing negative sourced material (including citations).

    One of his edits suggests that he is deeply familiar with the company as an insider (he insults a former employee): https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alpha_Genesis&diff=prev&oldid=1315854111

    Most of his edits involve removing material he doesn't like, along with their citations: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alpha_Genesis&diff=prev&oldid=1313314964 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alpha_Genesis&diff=prev&oldid=1274544461

    Occasionally he will add positive editorializing:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alpha_Genesis&diff=prev&oldid=1268887896 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alpha_Genesis&diff=prev&oldid=1277308998 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alpha_Genesis&diff=prev&oldid=1275524879


    Indigogirl321 also has an apparent COI, though after I posted a notice to their talk page, they stopped posting and JamesHolloman restarted. Indigogirl321 is typically not quite as brazen.

    Roughly half of their posts are related to Alpha Genesis and promoting its business.

    Indigogirl321 mischaracterizes their edits; describing them falsely as reducing repetition: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alpha_Genesis&diff=prev&oldid=1265641211

    Cut out PETA claim (note that the same user ADDED an unsourced PETA claim against a competitor) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alpha_Genesis&diff=prev&oldid=1314139207

    On Yemassee, South Carolina page (the town in which Alpha Genesis is located): removes sourced material that reflects badly on Alpha Genesis https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yemassee,_South_Carolina&diff=prev&oldid=1256620145

    On Morgan Island, SC page (also where Alpha Genesis is located): Removes a proper citation pointing to corruption in the regulation of the island https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Morgan_Island,_South_Carolina&diff=prev&oldid=1143751327

    Notably, Indigogirl321 also makes edits criticizing Alpha Genesis competitors:

    Inotiv (sample): https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Inotiv&diff=prev&oldid=1227260153

    Bainbridge,_Georgia (sample): Promoting a PETA investigation of an Alpha Genesis competitor with no citations https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bainbridge,_Georgia&diff=prev&oldid=1198018471


    Monkeywire (talk) 18:40, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard&oldid=1316464316"